central-west anatolia at the end of 7th and beginning of 6th
TRANSCRIPT
CENTRAL-WEST ANATOLIA AT THE END OF 7TH AND BEGINNING OF 6TH
MILLENNIUM BCE IN THE LIGHT OF POTTERY FROM
ULUCAK (İZMIR)
Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doktor der Philosophie
der Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften
der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
vorgelegt von
Çiler Çilingiroğlu
aus Balıkesir (Türkei)
2009
Gedruckt mit Genehmigung der Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften der Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen
Gutacher: Prof. Dr. Ernst Pernicka
PD Dr. Barbara Helwing
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 23.06.2009
Dekan: Prof. Dr. Jürgen Leonhardt
Contents
VOLUME I Contents i Foreword vii List of the plans xi List of the photo plates xi List of abbreviations xiii
I. General Research Outline A. Theoretical framework and goals of research 1 B. Geographical framework 11 C. Temporal framework 14
II. History of Neolithic Research in Turkey and West Anatolia A. History of Neolithic research in Turkey 17 B. Neolithic studies in West Anatolia 21 C. What distinguishes Late Neolithic from Early Chalcolithic in Anatolia? 24 D. Is Ulucak IV a Neolithic or a Chalcolithic site? 29
III. Introducing Ulucak Höyük A. Geographical and ecological data 31 B. Status of research 37 C. Excavation techniques 39 D. Stratigraphy of the mound 40 E. Radiocarbon dates from Ulucak 44 F. General features of architecture at Ulucak 48
1. Level IV 48 2. Level V 50
G. Settlement organization at Ulucak 51 1. Level IV 52 1.1. Orientation and size of the buildings 52 1.2. Space between the structures 53 1.3. Evidence of communal activity areas 54 1.4. Communal storage facilities 56 1.5. Presence of buildings or areas for ritual activities 56 2. Level V 61 2.1. Orientation and size of the buildings 61 2.2. Space between the structures 62 2.3. Evidence of communal activity areas 63 2.4. Communal storage facilities 64
ii
2.5. Presence of buildings or areas for ritual activities 64 H.The Neolithic assemblage 65 I. Subsistence 71
IV. Analysis of Ulucak IV and V Pottery A. Pottery analysis methods 77
1. Main bibliographic sources used in the study 77 2. Initial processing of the assemblage 78 3. Description of the fields in the databank 79
3.1. General information 79 3.2. Contextual information 80 3.3. Physical properties 80 3.4. Definition of the wares 86 3.5. Morphological information 90 3.6. Definitions of the vessel shapes 92
4. Illustration 94 B. Layer IVa 95
1. Description of the phase 95 2. Fabric 95 3. Morphology 98
C. Layer IVb 101 1. Description of the phase 101 2. Fabric 102 3. Morphology 105 4. Distribution of pottery in Level IVb buildings 108
D. Layer IVc 125 1. Description of the phase 125 2. Fabric 127 3. Morphology 129
E. Layer IVd 132 1. Description of the phase 132 2. Fabric 133 3. Morphology 134
F. Layer IVe 137 1. Description of the phase 137 2. Fabric 138 3. Morphology 139
G. Layer IVf 143 1. Description of the phase 143 2. Fabric 143 3. Morphology 145
H. Layer IVg 148 1. Description of the phase 148
iii
2. Fabric 149 3. Morphology 150
I. Layer IVh 154 1. Description of the phase 154 2. Fabric 155 3. Morphology 157
J. Layer IVi 161 1. Description of the phase 161 2. Fabric 162 3. Morphology 163
K. Layer IVk 167 1. Description of the phase 167 2. Fabric 168 3. Morphology 171
L. Layer Va 174 1. Description of the phase 174 2. Fabric 176 3. Morphology 178
M. Layer Vb 182 1. Description of the phase 182 2. Fabric 183 3. Morphology 184
N. Comparisons of pottery from levels V and IV 190 1. Fabric 191 2. Morphology 196
V. Pottery Technology, Function, and Organization of Ceramic Production at Ulucak 203
A. Procurement of raw materials 204 B. Preparation of raw materials 208 C. Forming the vessels 210 D. Pre-firing treatments 212 E. Firing 216 F. Post-firing treatments 221 G. Degree of specialization 221 H. Function of ceramic vessels 227
VOLUME II VI. Intraregional and Interregional Comparisons of Ulucak IV-V Pottery A. Central-West Anatolia 235
1. Yeşilova 236 2. Ege Gübre 238
iv
3. Çukuriçi Höyük 241 4. Dedecik-Heybelitepe 242 5. Agio Gala Lower and Upper Caves 243 6. General overview of the sites surveyed 245 7. Comparisons with Ulucak ceramics 246
B. Southwestern Anatolia (Muğla and Aydın Regions) 254 1. Aphrodisias-Pekmez 254 2. Latmos (Beşparmak) Mountain 255 3. General overview of the sites surveyed 255
C. Troas and Gökçeada 257 1. Coşkuntepe 258 2. Uğurlu 258 3. Comparisons with Ulucak ceramics 259
D. Lake District 261 1. Hacılar 263
1.1. General overview of the archaeological research 263 1.2. Ceramics 267 1.3. Comparing Hacılar with Ulucak 270
2. Kuruçay 279 2.1. General overview of the archaeological research 279 2.2. Ceramics 281 2.3. Relative dating of Kuruçay 284
3. Bademağacı 288 3.1. General overview of the archaeological research 288 3.2. Ceramics 290 3.3. Relative dating of Bademağacı 291
4. Höyücek 295 4.1. General overview of the archaeological research 295 4.2. Ceramics 297 4.3. Relative dating of Höyücek 299
5. Comparing Lake District sites to Central-West Anatolia 300 5.1 Fabric and wares 302 5.2 Morphology 307
E. Elmalı Plain 309 F. Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya Plain 310
1. Suberde 311 2. Erbaba 312 3. Çatalhöyük East 313 4. Çatalhöyük West 318 5. Can Hasan 319 6. Pottery sequence of the region and comparisons with Central-West
Anatolia 323
v
G. Melendiz and Bor Plains (Aksaray and Niğde Regions) 329 1. Musular 330 2. Tepecik-Çiftlik 333 3. Köşk Höyük 335
3.1. General overview of the archaeological research 335 3.2. Ceramics 337 3.3. Relative Dating of Köşk Höyük 338 4. Pottery sequence of the region and comparisons with Central-West Anatolia 340 H. Porsuk-Sakarya Basin (Eskişehir and Kütahya) 346
1. Demircihöyük 346 2. General overview of the sites surveyed 350 3. Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia 351
I. Eastern Marmara Region (İznik Basin and Istanbul) 354 1. Fikirtepe 356 2. Pendik 357 3. Yarımburgaz Cave 358 4. Ceramics of Yarımburgaz Layers 5 and 4 359 5. Fikirtepe and Pendik Ceramics 360 6. Ilıpınar 362
6.1 . Ceramics 364 6.2 . Comparing Ilıpınar with Ulucak 366
7. Menteşe Höyük 372 8. Barcın Höyük 375 9. Aktopraklık 377 10. Ceramic sequence of the region and comparisons with Central-West
Anatolia 378 J. Thrace 386 1. Hoca Çeşme 389
1.1. Ceramics 392 1.2. Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia 394
2. Aşağı Pınar 399 2.1. Ceramics 401 2.2. Comparisons with Ulucak 402
3. Karanovo 403 3.1. Ceramics 404 3.2. Comparisons with Ulucak 406
4. Rakitovo 410 5. Ceramic Sequence of the Region and Comparisons with Central-West
Anatolia 413 K. Northeast Bulgaria 415
1. Polyanitsa-Platoto 416 2. Koprivets 417
vi
3. Comparisons with Ulucak and Anatolian sites 418 L. Struma River Valley and Sofia Basin 422 1. Kovačevo 423 1.1. Ceramics 425 1.2. Comparisons with Ulucak 426 2. Krainitsi I 428
2.1. Ceramics 429 2.2. Comparisons with Ulucak 430 3. Slatina-Sofia 432 4. Ceramic Sequence in the Region 435
M. Macedonia 437 1. Nea Nikomedeia 438 2. Yannitsa B 442 3. Anzabegova 443 4. Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia 445
N. Thessaly (Larissa and Karditsa Plains) 449 1. Sesklo 455 2. Argissa 459 3. Achilleion 462 4. Comparing Thessalian Ceramic Sequence with Central-West Anatolia 468
O. Final Remarks 478
Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects 484
Bibliography 493
List of the Ulucak Radiocarbon Dates 536
List of the Calibrated Ulucak Radiocarbon Dates 537
VOLUME III Map
Chronological Table
Photo Plates
Plans
Summary of Ceramic Morphology
Catalogue of the Illustrated Ceramics
Plates
Tables concerning fabrics
Tables concerning morphology
vii
Foreword
The subject matter of this study is the analytical results of research conducted on the
pottery from Ulucak IV-V, a prehistoric mound in the vicinity of İzmir in Central-West
Turkey discovered by David French. The occupational levels IV and V at Ulucak,
systematically excavated since 1995, correspond to 7-6th millennia cal. BCE, or more
concretely, to the era of the early food-producing communities in the region.
Until recently, there was virtually no problem-oriented research, neither surveys nor
excavations, in the area which aimed to focus on the evidence of the early farming
societies. Thus, long-term excavations at Ulucak functioned as a pioneering project
aiming to expose large areas belonging to the Neolithic period. The lengthy depositional
sequence of the mound enabled archaeologists to reveal the intra-site culture-historical
sequence, as well as define local characteristics of the Neolithic material culture. Thanks
to the research at Ulucak it has become possible to discuss the origins, relationships, and
development of Neolithic culture in Western Anatolia. Subsequent excavations at other
contemporary sites in the area surrounding Ulucak, namely at Ege Gübre, Yeşilova,
Çukuriçi and Dedecik-Heybelitepe, turned Central-West Anatolia, specifically the İzmir
Region, to one of the best researched regions in Turkey with respect to the Neolithic
period. Besides, the material culture unearthed at these sites enabled the prehistorians to
acknowledge the intra-regional homogeneity as well as diversity and led them to
consider possibilities regarding the multiple origins and diverse social-cultural
connections of early the food-producing groups in Central-West Anatolia. Most of the
previous assumptions related to the cultural origins and relations of İzmir Region have
been abandoned or re-formulated. Specifically the assumption that the earliest farmers
arrived in the region as late as 6400 cal. BCE has to be abandoned in the light of carbon
dates from Ulucak and Yeşilova. In short, rapidly accumulating data from the region has
the potential to falsify many of the hypotheses but also endorse others which came to be
discussed in the last 30-40 years of Neolithic research in Turkey.
The increasing amount of Neolithic material culture recovered from sites like Ulucak
brings great responsibility to the excavators. The new insights into Neolithic culture
which the excavated material provides have to be disseminated in a timely manner via
academic publications. Yet the detailed analysis and process of publication takes long
time. Every season of excavation brings new and unexpected material to light and may
easily contradict previously published statements. It is my hope that this study will
viii
provide a broad spatio-temporal understanding to prehistorians who are interested in new
research on early farmers in Central-West Anatolia. It is obvious that the upcoming
studies will change the current picture obtained through the material analyzed for this
study. Hopefully, with the upcoming research we will be able to obtain a high-resolution
picture of the life during the 7-6th millennia BCE in the area. With this study, I have tried
to lay the culture-historical foundations for late 7th-early 6th millennia BCE for Central-
West Anatolia using archaeological material from Ulucak and other sites. The most
important purpose of this study is to embed the ceramic data from Ulucak IV-V into the
greater culture-historical context of Anatolia, Aegean and Southeastern Europe both
temporally and spatially.
It was my father Prof. Dr. Altan Çilingiroğlu and the late Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Manfred
Korfmann who persuaded me to study the ceramic material from Ulucak levels IV-V.
Unfortunately M. Korfmann, my initial advisor, did not live to see the fruits of this
study. To him I would like to express my eternal gratitude and respect for supporting me
and many other young Turkish scholars in Tübingen. His enormous and multi-faceted
contributions to Turkish archaeology will always be remembered and appreciated.
Prof. Dr. Ernst Pernicka and Prof. Dr. Ulrich Veit kindly agreed act as my thesis
advisors following Manfred Kormann’s passing and were instrumental to the success of
my dissertation research. In the final year of my studies Dr. Barbara Helwing also
considerately accepted my request to act as an advisor and contributed too many aspects
of this study. I would like to thank all of my advisors for the invaluable advice they
provided me as well as for making the technical and bureaucratic issues associated with
producing a dissertation so easy to deal with.
My deep appreciation also goes to the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst
(DAAD), which financed my stay in Tübingen for three years. Their generosity allowed
the production of this dissertation to be my sole focus. DAAD and its wonderful staff
also deserve heartfelt thanks for all the inspiring organizations and conferences they
sponser around Germany which contributed significantly to the intellectual aspects of
my Aufenthalt in Deutschland. Termination of my DAAD scholarship in the summer of
2008 did not result in a catastrophe, all thanks to Ernst Pernicka and the Curt-Engelhorn-
Zentrum für Archäometrie in Mannheim which allotted me a six month scholarship. It
was also a very kind gesture of Dr. Reinhard Brunner to make a DAAD-stipend
available to me for the expenses necessary to correct the language of this dissertation.
ix
Finally, the English correction of several chapters is made by Michelle Deva Jebb, to
whom I would like to express thanks for her hard work.
Many people contributed to the well-being of this study. First, I have the pleasure to
thank the entire Ulucak excavation team. Specifically Fulya Dedeoğlu MA, Atilla
Batmaz MA, Ass. Prof. Dr. Eşref Abay, and Ali Ozan MA of Ege University
Department of Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology in İzmir who have excavated
at the site for many years were always ready to listen and respond to my questions,
concerns, wishes and empty talk. I appreciate their help greatly. I would also like to
thank my dear friend and colleague Canan Karataş for the ceramic illustrations she made
for me. Archaeologists Selma Kaya and Mahir Atıcı from İzmir Archaeological Museum
kindly assisted me during my work in March 2007. I would also like to thank Kevin
Cooney MA, Dr. Canan Çakırlar and Aylan Erkal MS, who shared the preliminary
results of their specialized research on material from Ulucak. Kevin Cooney made the
long hours spent in the Ulucak Lab in İzmir truly fun and productive for me.
A number of people read and commented on several sections of my dissertation. Dr.
Raiko Krauß, Dr. Laurens Thissen, Eylem Özdoğan MA, and Kevin Cooney MA kindly
accepted to provide feedback on some sections of my text. I thank them for their time
and readiness to help. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Özdoğan, always a truly inspirational scholar to
me, kindly provided advice, suggestions and answers on a multitude of subjects
whenever I needed it. Prof. Dr. Mihriban Özbaşaran, Dr. Clemens Lichter, Dr. Barbara
Horejs, Dr. Serap Özdöl, Dr. Haluk Sağlamtimur, Dr. Zafer Derin, Ass. Prof. Dr. Necmi
Karul, Dr. Nurcan Yalman, Berkay Dinçer MA, Prof. Dr. Ivan Gatsov, Nedko Elenski,
and Dr. Emre Güldoğan also provided help concerning questions I had on material
within their respective areas of research. In Tübingen, Utta Gabriel MA, Dr. Ulf-Dietrich
Schoop, Stephan Blum MA, Petar Zidarov MA, and Dr. Arsen Bobokhyan contributed to
questions I had concerning many aspects of PhD writing, including methodology and
structure of the study.
I will fondly remember my stay in Tübingen thanks to my friends Hürcan Aslı Aksoy,
Mehmet Barış Albayrak, Canan Çakırlar, Acun-Doro-Taru Papakçı, and Sinan Ünlüsoy.
I cannot find adequate words to express how important they were and still are for my Da
Sein. People and animals of Münzgasse 13 who were kind enough to share their cozy
house with me deserve also thanks.
x
Sinan Ünlüsoy deserves definitely more than this one sentence in which I would like to
express my sincere gratitude for all the understanding, concern, help and perpetual
support he so selflessly provided since the very day I arrived in Tübingen.
Finally, I would like to express my gratefulness to my wonderful family, Altan,
Mukadder and Şölen Çilingiroğlu, for their continuous support which contributed much
more to the success of this study than they can ever imagine.
This dissertation is humbly dedicated to the legacy of Charles Darwin on his 200th birth
anniversary.
xi
List of the Plans Plan 1:
1.1: Plan of Ulucak IVa-c settlement.
Plan 2:
2.1: Building phases IVg-Va in Grid N11.
2.2: Buildings 22-26 in Grid L13 (Va).
Plan 3:
3.1: Plan of Vb buildings 30, 31 and 33 in Grid L13 (Vb).
3.2: South section in Grid L13.
List of the Photo Plates Photo-Plate 1
1.1: The Nif Plain (view from Northeast) with arrow showing the mound Ulucak.
1.2: Ulucak mound (view from North).
Photo-Plate 2
2.1: Buildings 12 and 13 in Grid N13 (IVb)
2.2: Architectural remains from Early IV and Va in Grid N11.
Photo-Plate 3
3.1: Buildings 22-26 in Grid L13 (Va).
3.2: Buildings 27 and 28 in Grid N11 (Va).
Photo-Plate 4
4.1: Architectural remains of Vb buildings 30in Grid L13.View from southwest.
4.2: Architectural remains of Vb buildings 30in Grid L13.View from north.
Photo-Plate 5
5.1: Building 31 in Grid L13 (Vb).
5.2: Building 33 (Workshop) in Grid L13 (Vb).
Photo-Plate 6
6.1: Samples of RSBW.
6.2: Samples of CSBW.
Photo-Plate 7
7.1: Samples of Gray Ware.
7.2.: Samples BBW.
Photo-Plate 8
8.1: Samples of BBW.
8.2: Samples of Mica glimmer ware.
Photo-Plate 9
xii
9.1: Samples of red-on-cream painted pieces.
9.2: Samples of cream-on-red painted pieces.
Photo-Plate 10
10.1: Samples of Coarse Ware.
10.2: Impressions made on RSBW.
10.3: Impressions made on CSBW.
10.4: Impressions made on Gray Ware.
xiii
Abbreviations
Abb. Abbildung
BAR British Archaeological Reports
BBW Brown Burnished Ware
BCE Before the Common Era
Bld. Building
BP Before Present
CSBW Cream Slipped and Burnished Ware
cal. Calibrated
cm Centimeter
DFBW Dark Faced Burnished Ware
EBA Early Bronze Age
EC Early Chalcolithic
Ed. Edited by
EN Early Neolithic
Fig. Figure
km Kilometer
LN Late Neolithic
m Meter
mm Millimeter
MN Middle Neolithic
Pl. Plate
PN Pottery Neolithic
PPN Pre-Pottery Neolithic
RGZM Römisch-Germanisches Zentral Museum
Res. Resim
RSBW Red Slipped Burnished Ware
Tab. Table
Taf. Tafel
TAY Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri
TÜBA-AR Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi- Arkeoloji Dergisi
TTK Türk Tarih Kurumu
Unid. Unidentifiable
1
Chapter I
General Research Outline
A. Theoretical Framework and Research Goals
The core substance of this study encompasses the presentation of the pottery analysis
from Levels IV-V at Ulucak Mound in İzmir, Turkey, in order to reveal the site’s
culture-historical and chronological position in the greater Neolithic context in Turkey
and the Aegean. Trigger (2006: 313) holds that culture-historical archaeology’s main
advantage is “its ability to trace historical relation through time and space.” However,
the current implementations of culture-historical approach does not aim merely to
catalogue finds and bring them in a temporal order in order to invent culture names and
write regional histories. The ‘New Culture-Historical Archaeology’ has the great
advantage of using and applying analytical tools and theoretical perspectives developed
by a variety of viewpoints within processual and post-processual archaeologies, and thus
to provide firm answers related to the long-term cultural-social changes as reflected by
the archaeological record (Trigger 2006: 491). Current writings of prehistory in a long-
term perspective are motivated by the ever-growing knowledge on the past societies
enabled through the multitude of methods developed by the natural sciences on the one
hand, and archaeological application of various theoretical perspectives of the natural
and social sciences as well as of humanities on the other. Following the view promoted
by B. Trigger (1998), in my opinion, archaeologists who maintain an ontologically
materialist and epistemologically realist position1, now have the unique chance to
1 Ontologically material view, as contrast to the ontologically idealist view, holds that the human body evolved as a form of adaptation to the outside world and it only exists and acts in this material world. Realist epistemology is contrasted to positivist and idealist epistomologies in the sense that it aims to produce knowledge by acknowledging the significance of both appearences (positivist view) and imperceptible entities and processes (idealist view). When applied to archaeology, these concepts implies that the quest for understanding the human
2
interpret the long-term historical development of past societies more accurately, with
multiple perspectives and with great detail.
In line with the theoretical viewpoint described above, the culture-historical approach of
the study was a conscious choice, but also adapting it was an inevitable outcome of the
poor research status in the Central-West Anatolia where research concentrating on 7-6th
millennia BCE sites is still in its incipiency. The inadequate nature of archaeological
research on the early prehistory of the region caused scholars to either ignore this section
of Anatolia or to develop models that did not rely on firm archaeological evidence. As a
result, Central-West Anatolia emerged as a missing link in the ongoing discussions on
the origins and development of the Neolithic way of life in Anatolia, its cultural
interactions with neighboring regions, as well as the possible impact of these cultures on
the neolithization of Southeast Europe (Çilingiroğlu and Çilingiroğlu 2007). Therefore,
the priority of this study is to lay the culture-historical and chronological foundations for
the period in question on a regional scale by implementing the insights gained through
the pottery analysis. In the absence of such a temporal and spatial framework it is not
possible to organize and interpret the rapidly accumulating archaeological data from
various projects conducted in the area and embed them into the already established
chronologies of the surrounding regions, or to address other relevant questions.
As already mentioned, research for understanding the early farmer-herder societies in
Central-West Anatolia has been a very recent undertaking. The Ulucak Project is the first
systematic and long-term excavation in the region that aims to recover archaeological
data on early sedentary farming groups. Luckily, several other mounds in the region with
archaeological deposits that correspond to Ulucak IV-V were also excavated.
Excavations at Ege Gübre (Sağlamtimur 2007) and Dedecik-Heybelitepe (Lichter and
Meriç 2007) are completed, whereas to date, research continues at Çukuriçi Höyük
(Horejs 2008) and Yeşilova (Derin 2007). Despite a number of overview articles
presenting the discoveries made at these sites and a monograph on Ulucak excavations
between 1995-2002 (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004), detailed analyses on various material
cultural components discovered during these excavations has not been published yet.
Likewise, comprehensive analysis of pottery from other Central-West Anatolian sites
and the assessment of their culture-historical and relative chronological positions are in
past has to embrace multiple intertwined aspects of human existence such as biological processes, ecological adaptation, social organization, economical, physchological, and ideological factors. For details on both of these concepts see Trigger 1998.
3
progress. In this respect, this study becomes the first to cover 7-6th millennia BCE
pottery from Central-West Anatolia in such a detailed manner with an intra-regional and
inter-regional perspective and in an attempt to understand the origins, development,
long-distance relations, and the termination of the Neolithic culture in the region.
The suggestions made and conclusions drawn in the study rely on archaeological
material that covers the end of the 7th and the beginning of 6th millennium BCE
(6300/6200-5700/5600 cal. BCE). In other words, our analysis will demonstrate the local
development in the pottery types and shapes for more than half a millennium,
encompassing Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods according to Anatolian
terminology. This same period would cover the Early Neolithic period and the beginning
of the Middle Neolithic in Thessaly. In the Macedonian Plain and Bulgaria this time
range corresponds to the Early Neolithic period. None of the excavated sites in Central-
West Anatolia contain cultural sequences as long and continuous as at Ulucak Mound.
For instance, the deposits at Dedecik-Heybelitepe cover only one or two centuries and do
not contain information on the long-term cultural processes. Similarly, with the
termination of research at Ege Gübre, we are not in a position to infer knowledge on the
possible earlier occupational levels at the site. Ulucak’s already exposed, more than four
meter deep cultural deposits2 which belong to early food-producing societies and cover
1000 years, serves to enlighten us about the periods that are not unearthed on other
mounds in the region.
One of the advantages of studying archaeological material from Ulucak results from the
relatively well-preserved nature of Neolithic deposits in the mound. These largely
undisturbed deposits provide us with both an immense knowledge on the successive
settlements and relatively secure contexts to rely on. As it is known, well-defined
architectural remains dating to the 7th millennium BCE are especially scarce in West
Anatolia and Southeast Europe. For instance, the earliest deposits at Bademağacı are
almost entirely void of architectural features, except for the hardened lime floor in ENI-8
(Duru 2007: 344). Likewise, Thessalian and Bulgarian EN sites are poor in terms of their
architectural elements. Exceptional preservation conditions at Ulucak IV-V provide us
with a unique chance to understand both the continuity and change in the settlement
plans, architectural techniques, inner organization of the houses, and activities executed
in and outside of the houses at an early food-producing village. Moreover, the project 2 As of 2008, the southern profile of Grid L13 contains Ulucak IV-V deposits between elevations 218.00-213.73 m above sea level.
4
team involves specialists who analyze botanical, zoological, lithic, and wood remains,
which allowed us to gain insights into the daily life of the community and their
interactions with the natural environment. The contribution of archaeobiological and
archaeometrical analyses, in combination with such well-preserved remains, is enormous
for our goal of reconstructing the 7-6th millennia BCE lifeways at Ulucak.
The cultural deposits from Ulucak are dated with the help of conventional radiocarbon
and AMS dating techniques, which provide reliable new dates for the period in question.
For instance, some of the carbon dates obtained during old excavations, such as Hacılar,
are problematic and archaeologists need to be cautious when working with these dates
(Cessford 2002: 28). Yet many other sites, like Agio Gala or Demircihöyük, do not even
have well-stratified deposits and carbon dates. The presence of 26 recently analyzed
carbon samples from Ulucak gives us the opportunity to construct accurate temporal
sequences and determine the precise chronological position of the settlements exposed
on the mound, in relation to other well-dated sites such as Çatalhöyük, Ilıpınar, Aşağı
Pınar and Menteşe. In light of consistent carbon determinations from these major sites, it
is now possible to have a firm basis for reconstructing the chronological development of
Central and West Anatolia together.
The earliest layers currently excavated at Ulucak are dated to the first half of the 7th
millennium BCE (Beta-250265: 7950±50 BP; Beta-250266: 7770±50 BP). Both samples
were small charcoal pieces found in deposits identified as VIa. The samples do not stem
from structural wood but they may belong to long-lived tree species and thus the
possibility of old wood effect should be kept in mind. Yet this information forces us to
reconsider the neolithization models for West Anatolia and the Aegean. Until recently,
6600 cal. BCE, relying on one radiocarbon date from Bademağacı, was considered as the
earliest possible date for the emergence of farming villages in West Anatolia and 6400
cal. BC for mainland Greece (Schoop 2005a: 49; Reingruber 2008: 618). The presence
of red-colored lime floors at Ulucak and their dating to 7910±50 BP (7000-6650 cal.
BCE at one sigma range) undermines the suggestion that early sedentary farming
villages did not appear prior to the second half of 7th millennium BC in West Anatolia,
or that they appeared around the same time along both sides of the Aegean Sea. In
particular, a feature like red-painted lime floors serves to connect the early inhabitants of
Ulucak to PPN communities in Central Anatolia and the Levant, where such floors are
one of the typical features of the settlements (Özbaşaran 2003; see also Bentur et al.
5
1991). These early dates imply that the earliest sedentary and farming villages were
founded in the İzmir Region before such settlements existed in Southeast Europe. Such
new knowledge is extremely important in terms of reconsidering models concerned with
the explanation of the neolithization process in Southeast Europe. Although the earliest
building phases (Vc-f and VIa) are not treated in this study in detail, archaeological
material from Ulucak’s early deposits has great potential to shed light on the nature of
early farming settlements and their development from the beginning of the 7th
millennium until the beginning of the 6th millennium BCE. In an area, where until the
mid-nineties nothing was known about the early farming settlements, the contribution of
Ulucak, with its long continuous sequence, is more than welcome. Additionally, the
amount of data provided by the excavations is nearly overwhelming. For the first time,
archaeologists have the chance to construct models and test previous ones concerning the
Neolithic period of Central-West Anatolia by using the secure archaeological material
provided by the excavations at Ulucak and other excavated sites.
Until recently, Central-West Anatolian pottery was generally described as red-slipped
fine ware. Tubular lugs and thick flattened rims were associated with this pottery and
dated to the Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic period by comparing them to Hacılar IX-
VI pottery (Lichter 2006; Erdoğu 2003). Up until the 1990’s, knowledge concerning
Neolithic pottery from the region relied completely on David French’s (1965) and Recep
Meriç’s (1993) extensive surveys. Therefore, archaeologists were not in a position to
construct a temporal development schema for the pottery wares and shapes, in order to
learn when certain features appeared and disappeared or whether they should be dated to
Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic periods. A lack of reliable archaeological data from
the region inevitably led scholars to construe the Neolithic of Central-West Anatolia as a
static cultural unit which was, in ceramic terms, very similar to the Lake District. More
insight into the period could not have been gained as survey material would not allow
such an intention (for more details on research status, see Chapter II).
Studies conducted on the ceramic containers from Ulucak IVa-Vb revealed many
unknown aspects of the development of pottery technology, ware types and vessel
shapes at Ulucak. Now we are able to observe the duration and depth of the different
developmental stages, continuities, discontinuities, and transformations in the pottery
production from the late 7th into the early 6th millennium BCE. Moreover, it is now
possible to compare and contrast this sequence with other sites and reveal the matching
6
and contrasting local characteristics of pottery in Central-West Anatolia. This study will
aim to demonstrate that Central-West Anatolian sites have their own peculiarities, in
terms of pottery tradition and production, which are different from the neighboring
regions. Comparing pottery groups and shapes, more than any other archaeological
material, enables us to detect the analogous features among different regions and assess
the level of contact and relationships among these areas. This study should function as a
basic source of reference for readers who are interested in gaining an initial
understanding of the early farming communities of Central-West Anatolia. The major
themes which will be covered by the study are as follows:
1. Presentation of pottery from Ulucak IV-V according to building phases.
2. Presentation of the pottery sequence at Ulucak and interpretation of the
continuity and change between the levels.
3. Discussion on pottery technology and production at Ulucak.
4. Discussion of the evidence for specialization in pottery production.
5. Functional interpretation of Ulucak pottery.
6. Intra-regional and inter-regional comparison of Ulucak pottery and construction
of a relative chronology.
7. Presentation of early ceramic sequences of Central, West and North Anatolia,
Bulgaria and Thessaly and comparison of these sequences with the sequence
established for Central-West Anatolia.
8. Discussion of the analogous and non-analogous features of Ulucak IV-V pottery
with sites from other regions.
Although the study aims to provide information on pottery tradition at Ulucak IV-V,
substantial information on the site, its stratigraphy, architecture, settlement layout,
subsistence strategy, and material culture is provided in Chapter III. This is done in order
to make readers familiar with the architectural and archaeological material recovered
from Ulucak Mound. Much of the material culture recovered at Ulucak displays strong
similarities to contemporary sites in the entire Anatolia and Southeast Europe and
7
demonstrates how culturally embedded the population was in the complex social and
cultural network mechanisms that were operating in this huge geographical region.
The design and methodology of the pottery analysis is provided in the beginning of
Chapter IV. Chapter IV will also present the results of the pottery analysis according to
the building phases which include, apart from detailed reports on ceramics, information
on the preservation and the nature of architectural features assigned to single building
phases. Ceramics from each building phase will be treated in two major headlines:
Fabrics and Morphology. Also, the continuity and discontinuity observed from Level V
to IV will be presented at the end of this chapter.
Chapter V seeks to provide information on the technological aspects of pottery
production at Neolithic Ulucak, which is vital to our understanding of the organizational
aspects of the production and its role in the society’s daily life. It will also discuss the
possibility of specialization in the pottery production and functions of Ulucak IV-V
pottery, and how it might have changed through time. The aim here is to try to
reconstruct the various production stages from clay mining to firing at the site by
invoking observations made on Ulucak pottery, ethnoarchaeological case studies and
research on ceramic technology. Hopefully, Chapter V will provide insights about the
social context of pottery production at the site by embedding our ceramic data into the
current theories on ceramic production and organization in non-industrialized small-scale
societies (e.g. Kramer 1985; Arnold 1989); independent from all the concerns about the
relative chronology.
The final chapter (Chapter VI) will present the comparative analysis of Ulucak pottery.
Following an intra-regional comparison, Ulucak and Central-West Anatolian pottery will
be compared and contrasted to 41 key sites from 14 geographical-cultural entities. The
comparisons are in part based on the data obtained from the pottery analysis and
established sequence for Ulucak, as well as upon the available data from the selected key
sites. The developmental sequence established for Ulucak pottery encompasses certain
typical elements that can be associated with fixed temporal horizons. Following
Parzinger (1993) and Schoop (2005a), horizons are understood as certain points in time,
not as time ranges. The presence of multiple traits in closed contexts enables us to define
a single horizon. This horizon can be used to compare and contrast with other key sites
in order to infer relative-chronological statements. However, identification of a horizon
does not imply contemporaneity of an entire sequence but contemporaneity in the certain
8
point in time. Another potential analytical tool in relative chronological studies is the so-
called “Chain Dating.” Chain dating is practiced to date an assemblage “A,” which
cannot be directly correlated with one site “B,” but can be dated with the help of a third
assemblage “C” because the latter shares common components with A and B (Schoop
2005a: 27). It goes without saying that temporal correlations of A and B, by using C, is
more reliable if multiple components can be included in the analysis.
One of the problematic notions in
studies dealing with relative
chronologies raises from using
elements that have long-term
continuity without any changes in the
morphology or style (Schoop 2005a:
25). Unfortunately, one often comes
across this problematic assumption in
archaeological studies, as many
material elements in Neolithic
assemblages continue to occur for
centuries without remarkable
morphological changes. Sling missiles,
certain forms of projectile points, figurines, various bone objects, stamps, and some
lithic production techniques or tools are present in Neolithic assemblages and most of
them even continue into the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Trying to infer high-
precision correlations using such criteria is extremely problematic and may be very
misleading (Fig. 1.1).
Yet another potentially problematic correlation may occur when components like
architectural techniques and material, which are partially dependent on the ecological
conditions, are implemented as tools for chronology building. Differences or similarities
of architectural techniques do not tell anything conclusive about the temporal
relationship between two sites. Again, multiple common elements, preferably ceramics
and small finds, can offer us firm grounds with which to base suggestions and
correlations upon.
The next step in constructing chronologies is to combine the absolute dates which allows
us to present our relative-chronological results with reference to absolute years (Eggert
Figure 1.1: Three fictional assemblages which inreality do not intersect temporally but are interpretedas contemporary by using criteria that do not changeover a long period of time (modified after Schoop2005a: Abb. 1.2)
9
2005: 149-151). For instance, at Ulucak, chaff temper, large storage jars and double-
knobs are associated with Level IV, and these multiple traits can be treated as
representing one time horizon at the site. By comparing and contrasting these traits to
other sites in Central-West Anatolia, where a similar development to Ulucak is most
probable, and by integrating available carbon dates, we were able to synchronize the
chronological relations of the excavated material from these settlements in relative and
absolute terms. At this point, it is fundamental to our analysis that we are critical about
the non-absolute nature of the carbon data. It must be mentioned that chronological
tables and periods or boundaries defined within them are not static and real-time
reflections of the prehistorical events. The fluidity of chronological synchronizations
stems both from the nature of the relative chronological method and from the
interpretation of absolute dates (Buck, Litton and Scott 1994; Campbell 2007). As
Campbell (2007) emphasizes, chronological tables should be implemented to bring an
order to the past, not to interpret or explain it.
The current study makes both comparisons on ceramic fabrics and vessel morphology, as
well as in some cases other archaeological material. This is carried out in order to
comment on the possible contemporaneity of the sites in different regions. It is clear that
random analogies between material cultures of sites in different regions are not
necessarily implications for contemporaneous occurrences, and statements relying on a
single trait or find should be made with utmost caution (Eggert 2005: 259). Therefore, in
some cases ceramic analogies are tested against the non-ceramic archaeological data and
absolute dates from both regions.
It is relatively easy to find strong analogies between geographically close regions where
the statements on chronological relations can be made with certain security. However, in
regions that are far apart from one another, it is difficult to make correlations despite
several analogies between their ceramic assemblages. It proved, for instance, to be
difficult to comment on the timely relation between some assemblages from Northeast
Bulgaria and Ulucak, despite the presence of similar ceramic traits. It also proved
challenging to match a defined horizon from Ulucak (with multiple traits) with that of
specific Bulgarian assemblages. The absence of carbon dates from the Bulgarian sites
also made correlation in a real time scale difficult. In the absence of matching multiple
time-specific traits, one is left with the information provided by the absolute dates.
10
Chapter VI will cover sites and ceramic data available from West Anatolia, North
Anatolia, Central Anatolia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Thessally. Each of these regions
will be introduced in terms of their geographical features, history of Neolithic research
and evidence of pre-Neolithic occupation. Following this introduction, we will
separately present the key sites located in this region. The sites that are selected for
comparison with Ulucak pottery are treated as key sites that provide representative and
reliable information on the pottery sequence of a certain region. Information on single
sites will cover the location of the site, status of research, available carbon dates,
important material cultural elements associated with Neolithic levels, architectural
features, and when available, archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data. The
introductory section will be followed by the presentation of the ceramic data, where
fabrics and forms will be introduced. For instance, Çatalhöyük, with its long sequence
from Early Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic, presents us with ceramic material that is
representative for Konya Plain. Together, Hoca Çeşme, Karanovo, Rakitovo, and Aşağı
Pınar, form well-established cultural sequence for Thrace, which chronologically
corresponds to Ulucak IV-V. It should be noted that not every excavated and published
site was treated in the study. We have consciously chosen sites with well-constructed
cultural sequences and detailed publications.
By comparing and contrasting the contemporary sites from these regions we are able to
construct relative chronologies and assess Ulucak’s relative chronological position by
combining ceramic data with absolute dates. Moreover, such a comparative analysis
enables us to define the culture-historical position of Ulucak in the greater context of
Anatolia and the Aegean. Inclusion of areas like the Bor-Melendiz Plain, Konya Plain,
Thrace, Northeast Bulgaria, Struma Valley, Macedonian Plain, and Thessaly are
especially important because pottery sequences from these regions have never been
compared to Central-West Anatolian sites before. This means that their relations and
cultural affiliations, as well as their contrasting features to Central-West Anatolia, have
never been discussed before. Chapter VI will present early ceramic sequence for all the
regions included and position Ulucak in the greater framework of the Neolithic. It goes
without saying that the inferences and suggestions made in this study can be, and should
be, subjected to further testing and examination. More data and different approaches are
needed to solve the problems we encountered while interpreting some of the issues
related to change and discontinuity in ceramic types across Anatolia and Southeast
Europe.
11
B. Geographical Framework As already mentioned above, this study will cover ceramic material from various
geographical regions. Placing the large areas covered in this research into separate
cultural-geographical regions was absolutely necessary to present our analysis in a
comprehensible way. For instance, the Aegean coast of Turkey and its hinterland cover
large areas from modern Çanakkale to Muğla. I intend to follow Meriç’s (1993)
suggestion here, that the Aegean coastal regions can be divided into three sub-regions, as
North, Central and South. Northwestern Anatolia includes Troas, the Bay of Ayvalık and
Midilli Island (Lesbos). Southwestern Anatolia is defined by the Beşparmak Mountains
and the littoral areas of modern Muğla.
According to division we are implementing in this study, Ulucak is located in Central-
West Anatolia. This region basically covers the modern cities of İzmir and Manisa.
Central-West Anatolia begins with Bakırçay Stream in the north and covers the Gediz
and Küçük Menderes basins in the south. Additionally, two natural harbors, İzmir and
Nemrut, as well as the Bay of Kuşadası and the Karaburun Peninsula are included in this
region. Due to the proximity of Sakız Island (Chios) to the mainland, it is also
considered to belong to this geographical region. In terms of geographical features,
Central-West Anatolia encapsulates the Gediz River Valley together with the major
Figure 1.2: Major ecological zones in Turkey around 6000 BCE (modified after Özdoğan 1998a: Fig. 2).
12
mountain ranges of Bozdağlar and Mount Spil. In contrast, the upper Büyük Menderes
Valley is part of Inner-West Anatolia.
In antiquity, Central-West Anatolia was strictly known as “Ionia” (Akurgal 1978: 114),
however, as we have included the whole Gediz Valley within Central-West Anatolia,
western portions of “Lydia” are also covered by Central-West Anatolia. One of the most
crucial characteristics of Central-West Anatolia is the presence of major river valleys
(i.e. horst-graben formations) that offer passages from inner to coastal regions.
Therefore, it is highly likely that these East-West oriented river valleys provided the
major communication routes between the inner and coastal areas. Ulucak is connected to
one of these valleys through the Nif Stream, which is a tributary of the Gediz River
(ancient Hermos).
In this study, Central-West Anatolia will be treated as the region with which the inter-
regional comparisons will be made. The results obtained from pottery analysis at Ulucak
will be compared and contrasted with settlements from Central-West Anatolia as well as
with sites from neighboring regions. Contemporary sites from non-neighboring regions
like Konya Plain, Northwest Anatolia, Thrace, and mainland Greece will also be
included in the comparisons. These locales are included because the most intensively
researched Neolithic settlements are located within them, and therefore present perfect
cases for relative chronological comparisons.
The pottery comparisons that are made in this study stem from sites which are largely
not directly related to Central-West Anatolia. The borders of the regions we identified in
this study are defined both ecologically and culturally. Ecological circumstances play a
major role in the emergence of different cultural zones in any given period. Neolithic
Turkey was composed of multiple ecological zones that ranged from steppe
environments to open woodlands and forested landscapes (Roberts and Kuzucuoğlu
1997; Fig. 1.2). In general, within these large ecological zones, major alluvial plains,
river valleys or lake basins constituted one single cultural region during the Neolithic
period. Central-West Anatolia, Troas, Northwest Anatolia, Inner-West Anatolia, and the
Lake District remained in the woodland zone, which were presumably thickly covered
with forests. All these regions, except the Lake District and Inner-West Anatolia, had
direct access to littoral areas, namely to the Aegean and Marmara Sea. The Konya Plain
and Suğla Basin were part of the open woodland, which consisted of lakes and marshy
areas without any access to the sea (Roberts and Kuzucuoğlu 1997: Fig. 4). The Bor and
13
Melendiz Plains were situated in a volcanic and dry steppe environment which was
however, drained by rivers. Such a variety of ecological zones during the Neolithic in
Anatolia might have been one of the major reasons for the diversity that emerged among
early farmers and herders (Schoop 2005b).
Information on the major geographical features in each region included in this study will
be presented in Chapter VI. From east to west the following geographical entities and
key sites are treated in the comparative Chapter VI:
1) Melendiz and Bor Plains (Aksaray and Niğde) a) Musular b) Tepecik-Çiftlik c) Köşk Höyük
2) Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya Plain a) Suberde b) Erbaba c) Çatalhöyük (East and West Mounds) d) Can Hasan
3) Lake District (Burdur) a) Hacılar b) Kuruçay c) Bademağacı d) Höyücek
4) Central-West Anatolia (İzmir and Manisa) a) Yeşilova b) Ege Gübre c) Çukuriçi d) Dedecik-Heybelitepe
5) Elmalı Plain (Antalya): survey data 6) Southwestern Anatolia (Muğla and Aydın): survey data 7) Porsuk-Sakarya Basin (Eskişehir and Kütahya)
a) Demircihöyük b) Sites investigated through surveys
8) Eastern Marmara Region (İznik Lake Basin and Istanbul) a) Fikirtepe b) Pendik c) Yarımburgaz d) Ilıpınar e) Menteşe f) Barcın Höyük g) Aktopraklık
9) Troas and Gökçeada (Çanakkale) a) Coşkuntepe
14
b) Uğurlu 10) Thrace
a) Hoca Çeşme b) Karanovo c) Aşağı Pınar d) Rakitovo
11) Northeast Bulgaria a) Polyanitsa-Platoto b) Koprivets
12) Struma River Valley and Sofia Basin a) Kovačevo b) Krainitsi c) Sofia-Slatina
13) Macedonian Plain (including FYROM and northern Greece) a) Nea Nikomedeia b) Anzabegova c) Yannitsa B
14) Thessaly (Larissa and Karditsa Plains) a) Sesklo b) Argissa c) Achilleion
C. Temporal Framework
The Southwest Asian Neolithic covers many millenia, beginning almost with the onset
of the Holocene and following a relatively short Epi-Paleolithic period that was
characterized by semi-permanent to permanent open-air or cave settlements. Transition
to sedentism in Southwest Asia is realized during the Natufian Period, 12000-10000
BCE (Bar-Yosef and Valla 1992). Food production appears only after the onset of
favorable climatic conditions in the Holocene, and sedentism as a result of long-term
interactions between human groups and their natural environment (Diamond 1997;
Mithen 2003). The Neolithic period in Southwest Asia is distinguished by two major
eras: Pre-pottery Neolithic (PPN) and Pottery Neolithic (PN). This distinction was first
made by K. Kenyon and has remained valid since then (Schmidt 2007: 28). PPN is
further divided into at least two sub-periods which are called PPNA and PPNB.
Archaeological evidence suggests that the socio-economic stability created during the
PPN period comes to an end around 8000 cal. BCE when many settlements are
abandoned and the so-called ‘Mega-Sites’ appear, where population aggregation is
assumed (Sherratt 2006: 59). Some scholars term this event the ‘Neolithic Collapse’ and
15
link the Neolithic dispersal from the so-called core regions along the Fertile Crescent to
this socio-culturally unstable period (Özdoğan 1997: 13-15).
Around 7000 BCE, ceramic containers emerge in Southwest Asia and Central Anatolia
which marks the beginning of PN (Thissen 2007: 219). In areas where PPN is not
attested, this era is also referred to as the Early Neolithic. The PN period covers around
1000 years (in rough terms, 7000-6000 BCE). Conventionally, 7000-6500 BCE refers to
the Early Neolithic era in Central and West Anatolia. Yet another 500 years is allotted to
the Late Neolithic period in Central and West Anatolia, which is characterized by Tell-
settlements with substantial mudbrick architecture and light-colored, burnished fine
pottery. In Northwest Anatolia, Neolithic sites are treated under the name ‘Fikirtepe
Culture,’ which is characterized by dark burnished pottery and round huts in littoral
Marmara (Özdoğan 2007b). Current evidence indicates that the earliest farming groups
arrived in Northwest Anatolia in the mid 7th millennium BCE (Roodenberg et al. 2003).
Following the PN in Anatolia, the Early Chalcolithic period begins. It is marked with the
appearance of painted wares that parallel the pre-Halaf painted pottery in Southwest Asia
from the turn of the 6th millennium BCE. The historical background of these, partly
arbitrary, definitions can be found in Mellaart’s publications. He claimed that (Mellaart
1964b: 5):
“In Anatolia, ‘Neolithic’ is used to describe the cultures of the seventh and first half of the sixth millennium BCE, preceding those with painted pottery (and metal., however rare) termed Early Chalcolithic.”
What Mellaart actually was trying to prove was that the Anatolian Plateau was, as he
puts it, not a “mere backwater” in prehistory (Mellaart 1964b: 7). He probably reasoned
that this could only be possible if Anatolian cultures would be directly related to the
“high cultures” of Mesopotamia. This state of mind led him to evaluate Anatolian
cultures only in terms of their affiliations to Mesopotamian cultures. Painted pottery, in
this sense, gained extraordinary significance in his conceptualization of Anatolian
prehistory. His efforts did work and the main criterion to identify Chalcolithic in
Anatolia became (and still is) the painted pottery. The Early Chalcolithic period comes
to an end around 5000 BCE in Central, western and northwestern Anatolia, although the
precise development of populations can not be reconstructed in all these regions due to
the poor state of research (see Özdoğan and Başgelen 2007: Chronological Chart).
16
Similar argumentations can also be made concerning the Greek and Bulgarian Neolithic
periodization. On mainland Greece, specifically on the Thessalian Plain, plain fine-
medium burnished wares are considered typical for the Early Neolithic period
(6500/6400-5800/5700 cal. BCE); which is also typified by Tell-sites on alluvial plains
and rectilinear mudbrick architecture (Perlés 2001). The appearance of painted pottery
marks the beginning of the Middle Neolithic period, also known as the “Sesklo Culture”
after the eponym site. The Middle Neolithic period covers circa 500 years from 5800 to
5300 cal. BCE (Gallis 1996a: 120).
In Bulgaria, white-on-red painted pottery is the most significant characteristic of Early
Neolithic material culture, which covers 6000-5450 cal. BCE (Krauß in press). In
Thrace, the Early Neolithic period is referred to as the Karanovo I and Karanovo II
periods. In the Struma Valley, the Early Neolithic is also known as “West Bulgarian
Painted Culture” or Kremikovči Culture (Gaul 1948). The Early Neolithic period covers
several centuries (6000-5700 BCE) in the Macedonian Plain. The Middle Neolithic is
another long period, corresponding to 5700-5000 BCE, and the Late Neolithic covers the
entire 5th millennium BCE (Mitrevski 2003). Current evidence suggests that sedentary
farming villages appeared in the Vardar/Aixos Valley later than in Thessaly and the
Struma Valley (Perlés 2001: 99).
This study will concentrate on the time period between 7000-5500 cal BCE. This time
range corresponds to the Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic and initial Early Chalcolithic
period, according to conventional Anatolian chronology (see Özdoğan and Başgelen
2007: Chronological Chart). In Southeast Europe, these dates correspond to the Late
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods. In Southwest Asia, these dates mark various
periods including the early PN period, Hassuna-Samarra horizons, transitional Halaf, and
finally, the early 6th millennium BCE corresponds to the Early Halaf period
(Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Tab. 8.4.1).
17
Chapter II
History of Neolithic Research in Turkey and West Anatolia
A. History of Neolithic Research in Turkey
Before the research status in the western parts of Anatolia is presented, it is necessary to
evaluate the Neolithic research history as well as the current research situation in modern
day Turkey.3 Neolithic research starts in Turkey in the 1950’s. As Özdoğan underlines in
several articles (Özdoğan 1995; 1997; 1999), there was a strong prejudice among
scholars who worked in Southwest Asia until the 1960’s that in Anatolia, no Neolithic
settlement could be identified due to the harsh climate and marginal environmental
conditions. One such example of this prejudice was seen in Seton Lloyd’s book, “Early
Anatolia,” published in 1956 and frequently cited by various authors. (Özdoğan 1997;
Matthews 2002; Hodder 2006: 14). Although eleven years later Lloyd admitted that his
book “has to be almost completely re-written” (Lloyd 1965: 8), his following
astonishing statement lasted as the symbol of what status was given to prehistoric
Anatolia before the 1960’s (Lloyd 1956: 53-54):
“the region more correctly described as Anatolia, shows no sign whatever of habitation
during the Neolithic period...”
This state of mind was shared at that time by the majority of archaeologists, when carbon
dating had not yet entered the world of archaeology and the oldest cultures from
Anatolia were given a date of no more than 3000 BCE (Özdoğan 1997). There are a 3 Alternative reports on the Neolithic of Anatolia can be found in Özdoğan 1995; Balkan-Atlı 1997 and Esin 1999.
18
number of very important points in Anatolian Neolithic research history that turned
around several individuals whose work, in turn, dispelled everyone else’s long-standing
biases. Unfortunately, this perspective change took some time – some 20 years until the
results from these various projects were published and digested by the academic world.
These works include the excavations at Çatalhöyük, the “Joint Prehistoric Research
Project in Southeast Anatolia,” dominated by the excavations at Çayönü, and the
“Lower Euphrates Project.” The first of these events began with the start of an
excavation headed by James Mellaart, a young passionate archaeologist, who was
working at the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara. Mellaart started digging at
Çatalhöyük in 1961, having already finished his excavations at Hacılar between 1957-
1960, whose astonishing finds opened the old debate of neolithization of Europe through
Anatolia. Until then, this debate was found unreliable because of the lack of hard
evidence (Mellaart 1958: 153). On the other hand, the possibility of earlier Neolithic
sites in Anatolia was still missing. It was exactly for this reason that Mellaart started to
excavate at Çatalhöyük: “to complete the sequence [of Hacılar] and throw further light
on Hacılar” (Mellaart 1963: 41). However, as excavations started on the 17th of May,
1961, nobody at that time (including Mellaart himself) expected such extraordinary
results; results that would make Çatalhöyük one of the most famous archaeological sites
in the whole world ever to be revealed.
Although Hacılar was already known at that time and its earliest levels were labeled as
“Aceramic Neolithic” and “Late Neolithic,” proving a Neolithic occupation in Anatolia,
the situation at Çatalhöyük was much different. The site extended to 13.5 hectares and
had unusual good preservational conditions. Its earlier date, extraordinary finds and
Mellaart’s lively reconstruction and interpretation of its contents, together with his
detailed publications in the journal “Anatolian Studies” every year, added considerable
information and attracted attention to the prehistory of Anatolia from all over the world
(Hodder 1999). Nevertheless, we should mention the fact that the biases continued to
exist, but in a changed way. Çatalhöyük was interpreted as an exception, probably a
colony settlement of the people from the Levant who came to the area in order to exploit
obsidian or salt (Özdoğan 1997).
The second event that marks another significant turning point in understanding
Anatolian prehistory is mainly shaped around two individuals, who shared the common
research objective in their minds: Were there any early village-farming communities
19
along the foothills of Taurus, in the Upper Tigris Basin? (Özdoğan A. 1999: 37). In
1962, a joint project between the University of Istanbul and of Chicago founded and was
lead by Robert Braidwood and Halet Çambel. The project started with a survey in the
northern parts of the Diyarbakır, Urfa and Siirt provinces, during which the site called
Çayönü was located. Among sixty sites that were visited in Diyarbakır province Çayönü
was chosen to be excavated, mainly because of the favorable logistics provided by the
local school (Çambel and Braidwood 1980: 5, 42). As with the continuing excavations at
the site, it became more and more clear that Çayönü presented an unbroken sequence
from the PPNA to the PN period and perhaps more importantly, as astonishing results as
Çatalhöyük. This is especially made clear with its architecture and “special buildings,”
like Grill, Flagstone or Skull (see Özdoğan A. 1999). However, despite these sensational
data from Çayönü, similar to Çatalhöyük, with the impact of strong Levant-centric views
it was considered as yet another “odd case;” this was justified with its position on the
way to obsidian sources (Özdoğan 1996; 1997).
By 1968, another important project in Southeast Anatolia was started, called “The Lower
Euphrates Project.” One of the main aims of this huge project was to locate and save as
many archaeological sites as possible that would be inundated upon the completion of
the Keban Dam. From the 38 mounds that were found in the Altınova Plain, twelve of
them could be excavated. These excavations were mainly made possible with two
million Turkish liras that were provided by the Turkish government at that time and by a
collaboration of Turkish, American, German, and British teams (Kurdaş 1970). The
lively spirit that was created in the late 1960’s lasted until the 1980’s and subsequent
dam building projects were also provided with archaeological teams. Dam projects in
Turkey triggered many sites to be discovered in areas that were previously virtually
unknown. During these projects a young generation of Turkish archaeologists was also
trained and took part in the international and interdisciplinary collaborations (Özdoğan
2006). While these dam projects caused enormous damage, not only to the
archaeological sites but also to the environment, they also contributed to Neolithic
studies by introducing the newly found sites and the excavations through reports that
were published regularly. Among the significant PPN and PN sites that were excavated
in conjuction with the dam constructions in the 1980’s, Cafer Höyük, Grittille, Nevali
Çori, Kumar Höyük, and Hayaz Höyük can be mentioned (Roodenberg 1988). The
surprisingly unusual nature of the initial Neolithic in Southeast Anatolia came to be
recognized during the course of the 1980’s.
20
Since the late 1980’s, research on the Neolithic in Turkey has increased. The unbalanced
interest in the Southeast Anatolian Neolithic has also shifted to other parts of the
country. One of the most important projects in the 1990’s was the Aşıklı excavations by
Ufuk Esin. The excavations at this site presented invaluable information on the nature of
a 9th millennium BCE site in Central Anatolia (Esin and Harmankaya 1999).
Simultaneously, in the first half of the 1990’s, sites like Hallan Çemi, Hoca Çeşme,
Höyücek, Köşk Höyük, Göbeklitepe, and Ilıpınar, each of which has added enormously
to our knowledge, were excavated. In 1993, excavations at Çatalhöyük were resumed.
Similarly, a number of surface surveys that were carried out in this era (Özdoğan 1986;
1990; Efe 1995; Meriç 1993) have also shown how widespread the Neolithic sites in
today’s Turkey are. These surveys have stretched from east to west, south to north,
excluding only the areas north of Elazığ to the east of the Black Sea region. When we
consider the large number of Neolithic sites spotted on the other side of the border, in
Georgia and Armenia, the absence of Neolithic in these “marginal” areas could well be
related to the lack of research conducted in these regions. Since the second half of the
1990’s, new projects have been undertaken almost all over Turkey. Although altogether
their numbers do not reach a dozen, the data available today is large in amount when
compared to the early 1960’s. With every passing year excavations at the Kaletepe
obsidian workshop, Menteşe Höyük, Tepecik-Çiftlik, and Göbeklitepe present more and
more information on the lifeways during different stages of the Neolithic period (see
Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999).
However, this relatively optimistic view, which underlines the increasing research and
interest in Neolithic studies, seems very naive when it is compared to the research status
in neighboring areas. In Anatolia, there are still huge “empty” regions, where no surveys
or excavations have been undertaken. It is astonishing to consider that Turkey covers an
area of roughly 800,000 km2 and has only 55 excavated sites that yielded Neolithic
material.4 By 2006, there were 18 excavations projects that were being carried out on
Neolithic find spots. In shocking comparison, we note that in Greece, with its geographic
size of around 132,000 km2, more than 200 Neolithic excavations were carried out; and
in Thessaly alone, around 120 Early Neolithic sites were found, with 35 of them having
been systematically excavated (Alram-Stern 1996; Wijnen 1982; Gallis 1996). This
causes the scholars who work on the Anatolian Neolithic to compare sites that have
4 This information basically relies on the TAY Database (Harmankaya, Tanındı and Özbaşaran 1997). Other excavated sites that do not appear in the 1997 version are also included here.
21
enormous distances between them. We see that in 1979, for example, when M. Özdoğan
submitted his PhD thesis on Fikirtepe, which included comparisons from Anatolia, he
had to use Mersin-Yumuktepe, Hacılar and Çatalhöyük data because nothing else was
available. Huge geographical gaps between these sites had to be ignored because the
linking settlements were simply missing! Today, the picture is much better but some
large geographical loci still remain unresearched.
B. Neolithic Studies in West Anatolia
Where does West Anatolia stand in this brief history of Neolithic research in Turkey
since the 1950’s? The pioneering figure in this story is David French, who aimed to
discover West Anatolian Neolithic sites in order to fill the enormous gap between the
Anatolian Plateau and Southeast Europe. One of the earliest surveys in this area that was
undertaken by him in the early 1960’s revealed sites from the 6th millennium BCE. After
his surveys in Northwest Anatolia, covering the İznik area (French 1967a), French also
surveyed in West Anatolia with the goal of finding “connections between the early
pottery cultures of Anatolia, e.g. Hacılar, and those of Thessaly, e.g. Sesklo.” These
surveys were executed precisely in the Balıkesir and Manisa/Akhisar regions, where he
visited eight sites and collected pottery (French 1965: 15-16). Of those sites, Karakurt
revealed only body sherds and at Kavaklıkahve only one red-slipped rimsherd was
found. Most of the pottery (90%) he collected came from two sites: Moralı and Ulucak
(French 1965: 18). A few years later, French made another survey in the same area and
he tried to document all the prehistoric sites. This time he classified the pottery, which
was collected according to the periods they possibly represented. Among them “plain
burnished” and “early painted” came to represent the Hacılar type pottery for the 6th
millennium BCE. He also mentions seven sites with plain burnished and painted pottery,
including two which were not mentioned in the previous report. However, from one of
them, Çerkestevfikiye, there is no “plain burnished sherd,” but only one painted sherd to
which French refers to as “doubtful” (French 1969: 58). If one excludes the doubtful
cases of Çerkestevfikiye and Kavaklıkahve, this makes up a total of eight sites that were
discovered during French’s surveys. Until the late 1980’s, French’s surveys remained as
the only attempts to research the Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic presence in Western
Anatolia.
22
Table 2.1: List of the sites dated to 7-6th millennia BCE in Central-West Anatolia.
Another contribution to West Anatolian Neolithic studies comes from the Northwest part
of Western Anatolia, in other words, from Troas. In 1990, J. Seeher published a late
Neolithic site called Coşkuntepe. The site had pottery similar to early levels of Hacılar in
the south and Fikirtepe sites in the north (Seeher 1990). Since 2004, Coşkuntepe has
been further investigated by T. Takaoğlu, who suggests that the site was settled due to its
proximity to basalt sources (Takaoğlu 2005).
In 1986 and 1987, a team led by R. Meriç conducted important surveys in the Bakırçay,
Gediz, Küçük Menderes, and Büyük Menderes valleys of West Anatolia, during which
10 new 7-6th millennia sites were recorded (Meriç 1993). The results of a survey
executed by Akdeniz, who identified some of the finds from Tavşan Adası as Neolithic,
Site Name Province Surveyor(s) Araptepe‐Bekirlertepe Menemen‐İzmir Şenyürek et al. 1950; Lichter 2002; 2005
Alibeyli Saruhanlı‐Manisa French 1965;1969
Kayışlar Saruhanlı‐Manisa French 1965; 1969
Moralı (mentioned as Moralılar by Dinç) Akhisar‐Manisa French 1965; 1969; Dinç 1997; Takaoğlu
2004
Nuriye Saruhanlı‐Manisa French 1965; 1969
Ulucak Kemalpaşa‐İzmir French 1965; 1969
Arpalı II Saruhanlı‐Manisa French 1969
Çerkestevfikiye Manisa French 1969 Mersinli Alaşehir‐Manisa Meriç 1993 Nemrut Kemalpaşa‐İzmir Meriç 1993
Küçük Yamanlar Bornova‐İzmir Meriç 1993 Çaltıdere Çandarlı‐İzmir Meriç 1993 Tepeköy Torbalı‐İzmir Meriç 1993 Höyücek II Menemen‐İzmir Meriç 1993 Yenmiş İzmir Meriç 1993
Çukuriçi Höyük Efes‐İzmir Evren‐İçten 1997; Evren 1999; Horejs 2008 Arvalya (Gül Hanım) Efes‐İzmir Evren‐İçten 1997 Gökçealan Köyü Höyük Selçuk‐İzmir Evren‐İçten 1997 Tepeüstü‐Barbaros Urla‐İzmir Erkanal‐Günel 1996; Erdoğu 2000
Paşaköy Bergama‐İzmir Erdoğu 2000 Yeşilova Bornova‐İzmir Derin 2007
Yassıtepe Höyüğü Bornova‐İzmir Derin 2007 Çakallar Tepesi Urla‐İzmir Derin 2007 Ege Gübre Aliağa‐İzmir Erdoğu 2000; Sağlamtimur 2007
Dedecik‐Heybelitepe Torbalı‐ İzmir Lichter 2005; Lichter‐Meriç 2007 Tepeköy Torbalı‐İzmir Lichter‐Meriç 2007
Kuşçuburun Torbalı‐İzmir Lichter‐Meriç 2007 Çeşme‐Bağlararası Çeşme‐İzmir Erkanal (pers. comm.)
23
were also very important. Unfortunately, he could not find anything older than Early
Bronze Age at Saplıadası, which had previously been dated as earlier by Voigtländer
(Akdeniz 1997). It is known that during some excavations, like at Miletos and
Aphrodisias, Neolithic finds were also recovered in the surrounding landscape
(Voigtländer 1983; Joukowsky 1986). During the surveys that were carried out around
Miletos, seven late Neolithic-Chalcolithic settlements were found, some of which are
interpreted as “Fischercamps” (Lohmann 1995: 304). In 2002, C. Lichter gathered
together all the identified sites in West Anatolia to review the existing Neolithic- Early
Chalcolithic archaeological record for West Anatolia. In analyzing these sites, he took a
special interest in the Araptepe-Bekirlertepe material (Lichter 2002); this site had already
been visited in the 1950’s when it was identified as an Early Bronze Age site because of
its red-slipped wares that were similar to those from Troia II (Şenyürek et al. 1950: 492-
493). Amazingly, Lichter (2002; 2005) reports that the red-slipped wares from this site
are of Neolithic age, which is clearly indicated by their characteristic morphological
features.
Naturally, Şenyürek and his team could not know this at the time when they visited the
site because Hacılar was still unknown. Lichter also mentions Kömür Adası as a
Neolithic site (Lichter 2002), but Akdeniz reports that here only Early Bronze Age and
second millennium BCE pottery were found (Akdeniz 1997). New sites are constantly
being discovered in the region, mainly during construction activities such as those at Ege
Gübre, Yeşilova and Torbalı. At these sites, salvage excavations are being carried out in
order to bring as much data as possible to our “data pool” (Tab. 2.1).
The southwest part of the region is also being investigated by various scholars. In
particular, Peschlow-Bindokat’s discovery of numerous rock paintings stands out as one
of the most significant contributions to the general archaeological picture for the region.
Although the dating of the rock paintings remains by and large unclear, some of the
painted pottery sherds found associated with them and geometric motifs that are seen on
the human figures are closely reminiscent of Hacılar Early Chalcolithic pottery. This
evidence suggests a date of around the end of the 7th to the early 6th millennium BCE
(Peschlow-Bindokat 2003). There are also other various find spots in the area where an
assortment of possibly Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic finds were discovered (Yaylalı
2006).
24
In West Anatolia, urbanization and industrialization continue at a great speed. Sadly, it is
unknown just how much of the archaeological record is lost. It is really tragic that in
such an area, where there is a great potential for Neolithic studies, the sites are either
covered with thick alluvium deposits or are subject to constant damage. With great
insight, French pointed out 40 years ago:
“precise data ...are lacking [in the area] and until a great deal more is discovered in fields other than ceramics, theorizing will largely be speculative and groundless” (French 1969: 75).
Unfortunately, this statement was valid only until recent years. In total, there are four
excavations being conducted at 7-6th millennia sites in Central-West Anatolia.
Additionally, there are the short-term excavations conducted at Dedecik-Heybelitepe by
R. Meriç and C. Lichter. Although this number seems to be very low, every single piece
of information provided by these projects is more than welcomed. In an area where
virtually nothing was known about the cultures of the 7th and 6th millennia BCE, except
that there was a presence of red-slipped wares, data obtained through systematic and
goal-oriented excavations has an immense value. In this respect, excavations at Ulucak,
Ege Gübre, Yeşilova, and Çukuriçi Höyük have already fundamentally affected our view
of the West Anatolian Neolithic. There is now good reason to hope that these projects
will contribute to the Anatolian and Aegean Neolithic studies enormously and change
the way prehistorians perceive the culture-historical development in the area.
C. What Distinguishes Late Neolithic from Early Chalcolithic
in Anatolia? The main criterion for Mellaart in the transition from Late Neolithic to Early
Chalcolithic was the appearance and gradual increase of painted pottery. Since then, the
appearance of painted wares is considered as the beginning of the Early Chalcolithic
period in Anatolia. Although Mellaart makes it clear that the transition from
monochrome to painted wares at Hacılar was gradual and there was no evidence of a
cultural break or a substantial change from Level VI to V, he had to draw a line in order
to separate the two traditions.5 The Levels IX-VI at Hacılar were called “Late Neolithic”
while Levels V-I designated “Early Chalcolithic;” the latter was explicitly described as
“the period of the first painted pottery cultures” (Mellaart 1970: 94). This arbitrary
5 It is known that although Hacılar VI ended with a fire, which can be observed everywhere in the settlement, it did not cause a break in the occupation. A new village was built immediately on top of the burnt village (Mellaart 1970).
25
division of Late Neolithic from Early Chalcolithic at Hacılar, where material cultural
elements fail to display any changes (except the gradual increase of painted pottery), is a
point where confusion arises among scholars when they realize the cultural continuity in
the archaeological record. This problematic notion in the terminology was already
pointed out by Eslick (1992: xviii), which is quoted below completely:
“The conventional terms, Early and Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, used to designate the various cultures of southwestern Anatolia are far from satisfactory, for they do not reflect the basic divisions in the cultural sequence but have resulted from comparison of individual parts of the sequence with culture sequences in different parts of Anatolia. In particular, the equation of the beginning of the Chalcolithic with the use of painted designs on pottery takes no account of the basic continuity of culture at this point”.
As Eslick makes it clear, cultural stability observed in the archaeological data from the
Early Neolithic to the Early Chalcolithic is hampered by arbitrary terminological
divisions. As mentioned above, the division between Late Neolithic and Early
Chalcolithic is based on the appearance of painted pottery. It should not be forgotten that
as Mellaart distinguished these periods 45 years ago, the only relatively reliable
chronology was the Mesopotamian sequence, which itself relied on the change in pottery
types. At that time, the appearance of painted wares, meaning the Halaf wares, was
considered to be the markers for the beginning of the Chalcolithic period, whereas
“monochrome ware” was immediately associated with the Neolithic period (Campbell
2007). Mellaart did adapt the Mesopotamian scheme without adequately questioning its
applicability to the Anatolian Plateau. It can be rightly argued that at that time there were
no investigations conducted in Central and West Anatolia focusing on the Neolithic
except for Mellaart and French’s work. What else could have been done? The
Mesopotamian, especially Mersin, chronology provided at least a reference point for
these pioneering scholars. Although these arguments are valid and should not be
underestimated, what Mellaart and especially his successors probably should have done
was to be cautious and critical. Today, this seemingly trivial decision that took place at
some point in the history of archaeology poses a significant problem which needs to be
solved one way or the other.
Yet another question deserving attention is defining how the Early Neolithic is defined
in West Anatolia. The answer is again hidden in Mellaart’s publications. He identified
three sites during his 1958 survey with pottery, which according to him, predated Hacılar
IX-VI and Mersin XXVI-XXV, and thus should be deemed as part of the Early
Neolithic. These sites were Alan Höyük, Çatalhöyük [East] and Kızılkaya (Mellaart
26
1961). Kızılkaya, the only Early Neolithic site from the Lake District, is now known in
the literature as Bademağacı. A good number of the ceramic traits from Kızılkaya
pottery, such as tubular lugs, red slip, oval forms, disc bases, and painted decoration,
have exact parallels at Hacılar IX-VI. However, despite this fact and since they look
technologically inferior to Hacılar IX-VI pottery, Mellaart dated these to the Early
Neolithic period (Fig. 2.1). As a result, in 1958 everything that seemed to be preceding
fine monochrome pottery of Hacılar IX-VI was called Early Neolithic. No definition
whatsoever was provided for the term, as if it were self-evident.
More recently, Duru applied substantial changes to the Lake District chronology which
was triggered by his excavations at Bademağacı. He (1996: 796) states on his first
Bademağacı preliminary report that Mellaart’s dating of the site as Early Neolithic was
correct. However, it is unclear what Duru conceptualizes by the term Early Neolithic.6
Duru’s additional input into the chronology of Lake District, terms such as “Early
Neolithic I” and “Early Neolithic II”
remain by and large vaguely defined.
He (2007: 352-353) asserts that Early
Neolithic I should cover a period from
8200 to 6500 BCE and Early Neolithic
II should range from 6500 to 6100
BCE. The culture-historical or social
transformations that occur during these
millennia play seemingly no role in the
definition of these terms. Moreover,
this suggestion leaves two centuries for
the Late Neolithic period (6100-6000
BCE) because he clings to 6000 BCE
as the beginning of the Early
Chalcolithic in the region. In contrast
to Duru’s suggestion, a date as early as
the late 9th millennium BCE for the
beginning of the Neolithic period in the Lake District is not currently supported by the
6 Duru (1996: 796) states that “We think that the lowest settlement in Grid A1dates to the middle of the 7th millennium and to the Early Neolithic period, as J. Mellaart previously stated.” (Original quotation: “A1 plankaresinin en alt düzeyindeki yerleşmenin, J. Mellaart’ın daha önce söylediği döneme, ENÇ’ye ait olduğunu ve 7. binyılın ortalarına tarihlenmesinin doğru olacağını düşünüyoruz.”)
Figure 2.1: Pottery from Bademağacı that is dated to“Early Neolithic” by Mellaart. Note the existence offine monochrome and painted wares, ’s’-shapedprofiles as well as tubular lugs (after Mellaart 1961b:Fig. 6).
27
data. Duru’s suggestion that EN-I should cover 8200-6500 BCE relies solely on an old
carbon date from Hacılar’s “Aceramic” phases (BM-127: 8700±180 BP). Duru himself
considers this specific carbon date from Hacılar to be wrong (Duru 2007: 352) and the
only carbon date from Bademağacı ENI-8 provides a date range of between 7000-6700
cal. BCE. Under these circumstances, is it possible to suggest that the earliest farming
villages occur in the Lake District at the end of 9th millennium BCE? The issue is open
to debate.
To summarize our points until here, the Early Neolithic of Central and Southwest
Anatolia was once defined loosely as everything that pre-dates Hacılar IX-VI and Mersin
XXVI-XXV. Excavations at Çatalhöyük made it clear that yet an earlier Neolithic
ceramic horizon existed in Central Anatolia, which undermined the initial dating of
surface pottery from Çatalhöyük East, Alan Höyük and Kızılkaya as Early Neolithic.
More correctly, it became clear that the early Neolithic pottery in Anatolia covers at least
half a millennium from 7000 to 6500 BCE. Mellaart abandons using a two-staged
division for the Neolithic in his later publications, making his chronological estimations
based on absolute dates. Nevertheless, misunderstanding caused by his earlier
publications seems to have their long-lasting impact on Anatolian prehistory. Recently,
Duru introduced new concepts into the already existing chronological scheme without
adequately clarifying his criteria. He also relied on carbon data that he himself considers
doubtful, thereby making the issue only more complicated. Lake District chronology still
relies on ceramics while other transformations and changes in the material culture
remain irrelevant to the chronological sequence.
It would be unfair here not to mention a proposal by Özbaşaran and Buitenhius (2002),
who defined five successive developmental stages for Central Anatolia with definitions
based on the changes observed in the general way of living of prehistoric communities.
However, its implementation by a greater circle of archaeologists could not be realized
thus far. Özbaşaran and Buitenhuis (2002: 69) formulated five developmental stages
from the 9th to 5th millennium BC and named them as Early Central Anatolian I-V (ECA
I-V). ECA I corresponds to the Epi-Paleolithic stratum whereas ECA II is PPN, ECA III
PN and ECA IV is the Early Chalcolithic period. ECA V corresponds to 5500-4000 BC
and covers the Middle Chalcolithic period. Each stage is defined through various criteria
such as subsistence strategies, architectural techniques, settlement layout, settlement
pattern, social organization of local groups and the material culture.
28
As discussed above, Central Anatolia and the Lake District have their own chronological
problems which are partly related to initial work by Mellaart and partly to new
problematic approaches. Unfortunately, these problematic notions experienced in
neighboring regions directly affect Central-West Anatolia and are very challenging for
scholars who work in this area. It is because current terminology is borrowed from these
regions, especially from the Lake District, where the cultural-historical development do
not necessarily match with that of Central-West Anatolia. This is most obvious in terms
of the plain-painted pottery transition. Even if it is accepted for a moment that the
transition from monochrome to painted wares constitutes the end of the Late Neolithic
period in Central-West Anatolia, this transition cannot be detected. The surveys and
excavated sites revealed only a handful of painted sherds which are not enough to
suggest a well-established painted pottery tradition in this region. Thus, the most
intrinsic criterion which divides the Late Neolithic from the Early Chalcolithic cannot be
found in Central-West Anatolia. Besides, as already mentioned, periods based on pottery
changes are likewise problematic and do not correspond to our current understanding of
the prehistory. The social-cultural stability must be recognized and other criteria must be
included when constructing chronologies. The definition of the Early Neolithic in West
Anatolia should also be carefully delineated using the data obtained from Ulucak’ early
phases, which date to the first half of the 7th millennium BCE.
Another type of puzzlement is created when archaeologists working in Western Anatolia
implement the Aegean chronology, which is constructed on completely different grounds
from the Anatolian chronology. For instance, what is Early Neolithic in the Aegean and
mainland Greece is conventionally Late Neolithic in Anatolia. The Aegean scheme was
first applied by Korfmann (1989) when he labeled Kumtepe and Beşiktepe as Late
Neolithic sites by using the Aegean (Greek) chronological system instead of the
Anatolian. Recently, Takaoğlu (2005) designated Coşkuntepe as an Early Neolithic site
using the Aegean sequence instead of the Late Neolithic, as Seeher (1990) previously
did. It can be argued that the coastal West Anatolian sites are geographically and
culturally more related to the Aegean cultures, and that this obviously led Korfmann to
use the Aegean labels. However, recent archaeological data gathered from West
Anatolian sites demonstrate that West Anatolian sites are culturally more related to
Anatolian (i.e. Central Anatolian, Lake District) sites than the Aegean ones. Moreover,
the implementation of Aegean chronological terms without even discussing their
meaning and relevance, as well as their relationship to contemporary Anatolian cultures,
29
proves to be nothing but confusing, especially for people who were unaware of these
regional distinctions. Utta Gabriel, a doctoral candidate at Tübingen who works on
Kumtepe pottery, found the solution in avoiding using these terms by relying on the
absolute dates and designating the early levels of Kumtepe as a “fifth millennium site.” 7
It is useful to repeat here that this text is not opposing the use of any of these terms as
long as they enhance scholarly communication and help in constructing chronological
systems that are based on current reliable archaeological evidence. Too many terms with
multiple meanings or too many concepts with no meaning are what our generation
should try to avoid.
All of the above mentioned complications prevent us from having a clear mind about the
prehistory of Anatolia. It is especially hard for scholars who work in Central-West
Anatolia to build on a reasonable ground. As it was pointed out earlier in the text, what
needs to be done for the time being is to be explicit. The scholars should explain what
they mean by Early Neolithic, Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic, be they defined only
by painted pottery, subsistence or architectural tradition, and so forth. It is the healthiest
way to develop the language of our discipline, and thus our communication.
D. Is Ulucak IV a Neolithic or Chalcolithic Site? It is clear that Ulucak was settled without any breaks from at least around 6800 to 5700
cal. BCE. According to the conventional chronology, this means the Early Neolithic,
Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods are found at the site (see the chronological
chart Özdoğan and Başgelen 2007). In other words, given that 6000 BCE is a valid date
for the transition from Late Neolithic to Early Chalcolithic, Ulucak has both Late
Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic settlements. It is true that one spots a number of
differences in architecture, pottery or subsistence strategy in the course of the
occupation. For instance, it is tempting to argue that Ulucak IV, which is dated to around
6000-5700 cal. BCE, represents the Early Chalcolithic stage, whereas Ulucak V a-f,
dated roughly to 6400-6000 cal. BCE, the Late Neolithic. Ulucak VIa with its red
painted floors would be placed in the Early Pottery Neolithic according to the Anatolian
and Southwest Asian terminology. In this sense, Ulucak data do not contradict with the
conventional chronology and would enable us to apply 6000 BCE without any major
problems. Nevertheless, I still hesitate to draw this line which would artificially separate
7 I would like to thank Utta Gabriel for providing me with the background information on this issue.
30
one stage from the other, as if there was a discontinuity or dramatic socio-economical
transformations. The way of life reflected by the archaeological remains seems to have
developed gradually from Level V to IV. Building techniques, settlement organization,
pottery technology, or modes of subsistence present no cases of abrupt changes or long-
term abandonments of the site. Therefore, in this study, as long as Ulucak is discussed in
itself, simply two subsequent levels at Ulucak (Levels IV and V) and the changes that
occur in these levels will be discussed. Whether they are Neolithic or Chalcolithic is
irrelevant in this process. What is important is to find out what kind of developments
occurred in the history of settlement.
When it comes to making intra-regional and/or inter-regional comparisons, there are two
main sources that one can benefit from: the absolute dates from Ulucak and other
comparable sites, and the inter-regional comparisons of various find groups. In this
work, the already available chronology for these comparisons will be utilized and Ulucak
will be referred to as a “Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic” (LN-EC) site. This would
mean that at Ulucak, there is evidence from both periods, including the transitional stage.
The presence of deposits dating to the first half of the 7th millennium BCE at Ulucak
indicates that Early Neolithic period is also represented on the mound. Nevertheless,
these labels are used only as a necessity to classify Ulucak in the general chronological
sequence. In this respect, I choose not to load any connotations to this term, except its
pure chronological meaning. Since the Neolithic research in the region continues and
new data bring new insights into the cultural-historical sequence it would be unwise to
propose a new terminology for the region. In my opinion, one needs to wait until the
sequence is fully established and we have a firm picture of the local development. Until
then, absolute dates can be used to make inter-regional synchronizations.
31
Chapter III
Introducing Ulucak Höyük
A. Geographical and Ecological Information
The mound is located 25 km east of the center of the harbor city of İzmir (ancient
Smyrna) and close to the highway from İzmir to Ankara at an elevation of 220.86 m
above sea level (Fig. 3.1). (lat=38.465455, lon=27.351654). Today it is within the
precincts of the small town of Ulucak, which is itself only slightly bigger than a village
(although the population is growing as a result of migration).
Figure 3.1: Contour map showing the location of the mound at Ulucak along with the main geographical features (modified after Kayan 2004: Fig. 1)
32
It is well known that the geomorphology of West Anatolia is a function of tectonic
movements that took place during the Middle Miocene and created four major horst-
graben formations in the area which were subject to sedimentary fill starting with Late
Pliocene (Kayan 2004: 4; Hakyemez, Erkal and Göktaş 1999: 549). Ulucak Höyük is
located in one of these grabens (İzmir-Kemalpaşa-Turgutlu), on the Kemalpaşa plain.
Manisa (Spil) and Nif mountains comprise the horst areas. In the Middle Miocene the
depression area was filled with lakes, all of which disappeared towards the end of
Miocene, perhaps due to the arid climate (Kayan 2004: 3-4). During the Pliocene, the
depression area was filled with sedimentation brought down by the rivers. New fault
lines were formed during the Pleistocene due to new tectonic movements. Additionally,
the river systems developed and started to form valleys (Kayan 1999: 4; Kara 1997: 33-
35).
A recent study in the region showed that Gediz Valley experienced dynamic
geomorphological transformations also during the Late Pleistocene into the Holocene
due to tectonic movements, and the area immediately North of Mount Spil was covered
by a large lake which, as a result of continuing tectonic movements, erosion and
incision, discharged into the Aegean Sea and disappeared during the Middle Holocene,
leaving the area to the domination of fluvial formations and accumulations (Hakyemez,
Erkal and Göktaş 1999: 550). Hakyemez maintains that during the occupation at Ulucak
Figure 3.2: Gediz Valley during the Early Holocene according to Hakyemez et al. (1999). The area between Manisa and Saruhanlı was occupied by a large lake and Nif Stream discharges into this lake (modified after Hakyemez et al. 1999: Fig. 1).
33
IV-VI, a shallow lake continued to exist in the area.8 Interestingly, none of the known
Neolithic sites are located in the area where the lake was presumably situated (Fig. 3.2).
In line with Mediterranean climatic conditions precipitation is mainly confined to the
winter months and springtime with the summer months extremely dry. Average
precipitation in the area is around 950 mm. The distribution and amount of rainfall in a
given year is also an important factor affecting rivers, which in this region has highest
rainfall values in winter. According to current measurements the coldest month of the
year is January and the warmest is July. The average temperature is around 16 C° (Kara
1997: 36). In other words, the winters are mild, the summers hot, and the number of days
with frost relatively low. Current measurements also show that the wind speed and
frequency are low on the Kemalpaşa plain (around 2.5 m/sec). July and August are the
months recording most wind, which usually blows from the south (Kara 1997).This
accounts for current climatic conditions in the area. However, investigations carried out
in the eastern Mediterranean on pollen records and marine cores suggest that early
Holocene climatic conditions were warmer and more humid than current ones. This is
indicated by the presence of deciduous oak and Pistacia in the palynological data as well
as by higher sea-surface temperatures (Tonkov et al. 2002; Allen 2003: 367-370).
Palynological analyses from two different areas in Southwest Turkey has also revealed a
high presence of deciduous oak in the Early Holocene, indicating a switch from open-
steppe vegetation to arboreal woodlands of oak, pine and juniper, again indicating
increased humidity (Eastwood et al. 1999; Vermoere et al. 1999). Roberts et al. (2001:
733) suggest, however, that the maximum level of humidity was not reached until 8000-
6500 cal BP. Another recent study based on paleoclimatic data extracted from Greenland
ice cores suggests that the collapse of the Laurentine ice sheet around 8200 cal BP
caused abrupt and rapid climate change, resulting in extremely cold and arid conditions
globally (Rohling and Pälike 2005). Some researchers connect this climatic event with
the abandonment of many Neolithic settlements in Southwest Asia (such as Çatalhöyük)
as well as the sudden appearance in Southeast Europe of settlements founded by
communities who had fully-developed Neolithic economies (Weninger et al. 2005). The
suggestions tabled by these studies can be summarized as follows: The early stages of
the Holocene provided warmer and more humid climatic conditions for human
populations than did the arid and inclement conditions of the Younger Dryas (11000-
10000 BP). It is highly possible that there was an abrupt climatic change around 8200 8 Personal communication with Y. Hakyemez.
34
BP, heralding a period of high aridity and low temperatures. Ulucak seems to be
abandoned around 5900-5800 cal. BCE, i.e. 100 years after the 8200 cal. BP climatic
event that induced aridity in the eastern Mediterranean. Further research is needed to set
the climatic event in relation to the simultaneous abandonment of contemporary
settlements in Central-West Anatolia.
The vegetation around the mound is dominated by evergreen shrubs (maquis) up to 300
m and by red pine (Pinus brutia) and oak (Quercus aegylops) forests, which occur at
altitudes of 300-900 m (Hütteroth and Höhfeld 2002; Kayan 1996). Black pine (Pinus
nigra) grows at around 1000 m. In areas higher than 1000 m the vegetation consists only
of various grasses and bushes (Kayan 1999: 11). Today’s agricultural production has a
typical Mediterranean character, dominated by vineyards (40%) and olives (27%). Kara
maintains that agricultural production might have been confined to the plain in pre-
modern times (Kara 1997).
The main soil types on the slopes of Mount Nif are typical red and reddish-brown
Mediterranean soils (Terra Rosa) containing ferric material. At higher elevations brown
woodland soil is found due to underlying limestone formations. The major soil type on
the surface of the plain is alluvial-colluvial; this extremely fertile (Kayan 1998) soil was
created by surface material that was washed from the slopes down to the plain. Today
there is a considerable incidence of ongoing deforestation in the region due to
industrialization, urbanization and over-exploitation. In view of vegetation studies,
suggesting that 70% of Turkey could potentially be covered with forests, one can suggest
that the prehistoric forest coverage in Central-West Anatolia was denser and more
extensive (Kürschner, Raus and Venter 1997).
Another point which is debated is the scale of the anthropogenic impact on the
vegetation during the Neolithic period. Palynological studies undertaken at Gölhisar
Gölü in the Burdur province of Southwest Turkey do not demonstrate any anthropogenic
effects on vegetation during the early Holocene, including the Neolithic era (Eastwood et
al. 1999: 691). Similarly, based on the palynological evidence from Southeast Europe
(e.g. Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, and Croatia), Willis and Bennett argue that
anthropogenic impact on the landscape can be seen at ca. 4000 BCE onwards and not
prior to this date. According to these scholars, even if Neolithic farmers and herders did
have an impact on the vegetation by causing soil erosion or less soil fertility, they must
have only affected small areas (Willis and Bennett 1994: 327-329). On the contrary,
35
Fuchs, Lang and Wagner (2004) who were able to date colluvial sediments in northeast
Peloponnese, Greece, argue that sudden increase in the soil erosion was indeed caused
by the Neolithic farmers. It is probable that where soil and vegetation were more
vulnerable to external pressures, a decrease in the soil fertility might have been seen
prior to 4000 BCE. It is difficult to ascertain whether cultivated areas around Ulucak
mound became infertile or salinized after thousands of years of continuous agricultural
cultivation by the community. Such a process naturally depends on the population size
on the one hand, and the form and intensity of the crop cultivation on the other.
The plain surrounding Ulucak was formed by the Nif Stream (ancient Krios) which
continues to flow just to the west and south of the mound, forming an arc. The mound
itself rises on Pliocene flood material, colluvial soils washed down from the slopes and
alluvium brought by Nif Stream. This stream continued to carry material during and after
the habitation at the mound (Kayan 2004). It is worth noting that natural and cultural
accumulation occurred simultaneously at and around the site. For this reason, four
meters of the cultural deposit is now buried under the present surface of the Kemalpaşa
plain. According to Kayan, the earliest occupation appeared on the edge of the flood
plain of Nif Stream. However, this did not threat the settlement due to its distance to
areas inundated during the flood season.
Geomorphological features like the East-West orientation of the horst-graben formations
in this region also provide natural passes for people who want to move between littoral
and inner regions. Ulucak mound is situated on an important spot, namely on the way to
the natural pass (Belkahve threshold) situated between the Mount Nif, western most
section of Boz Dağlar (Tmolos) Range, and Spil Mountain; both ranges are higher than
1500 m. Belkahve Pass leads to the Bornova Plain and the Aegean Sea. Ulucak was
connected to the Gediz Basin via Nif Stream; the former being one of the major river
valleys of west Turkey, having 401 km length and a catchment area of ca. 17,000 km2
(Maddy et al. 2007: 2866).
It must be noted that Ulucak has never been a coastal site, on the contrary, the distance
between the site and the coast might have been even greater in the 7th millennium BCE.
Evidence shows that globally the lowest sea levels were reached during the Late Glacial
Maximum (LGM) around 30000-19000 BP. After this date the ice sheets began to
constantly melt as the temperatures continuously rose between 19000-7000 BP; this
resulted in globally raising sea levels by ca. 130 m (Lambeck, Esat and Potter 2002).
36
Figures indicated by Fairbanks (1989) and Lambeck et al. (2002) are in accordance with
the models constructed by van Andel and Shackleton (1982) for the Mediterranean
region. It is indicated that at the peak of LGM (ca. 18000 BP), most of the Aegean
islands were either connected to the mainland or were substantially closer to it (Fig. 3.3).
With the onset of Holocene, coastal geography experiences substantial changes, namely
the rapid rise of the sea level and insularity process, which continue until around 7000
BP (see also Kayan 1996; Kraft et al. 2003; Brückner 2003). These major
transformations of the geomorphological features, inundation of coastal settlements and
creation/loss of islands as well as the reaction of the flora and fauna to the environmental
changes are significant factors which had enormous impact on the human presence of the
area (Cherry 1990). Ulucak was settled as the sea level rise was already in progress
around 7000-6800 cal. BCE. During the ca. 1000 years of occupation at Ulucak, the
mound became constantly closer to the coast. Whether the inhabitants of the region were
able to observe the change in the sea level will remain unknown to us.
Lastly, one of the most crucial features about the Kemalpaşa plain is its rich natural
springs which are particularly noted on the north side of the Nif Mountain (Kara 1997).
It is highly likely that the ancient name of Kemalpaşa, e.g. “Nymphaion” which through
time became Nif, owes its origin to the existence of these springs.
It should be mentioned that the climatic and vegetational conditions seen today in the
region do not necessarily correspond to the conditions 8000 years ago. In this respect,
palynological, climatic and geomorphological analyses conducted in the Eastern
Figure 3.3: Sea level changes in the Aegean between in 18,000 BP and 9000 BP (after van Andel and Schackleton 1982: Figs. 2-3).
37
Mediterranean and Southeast Europe assist us in reconstructing the Neolithic
environmental conditions in the region. Palynological studies in the İzmir region are
absolutely necessary in order to obtain a high-resolution picture of the paleo-climatic and
vegetational conditions for the region. The mound’s location at the edge of an extremely
suitable plain for agriculture and to a natural pass that runs towards the littoral areas, as
well as the mild climate, proximity to rich water sources and to forest products like
timber should serve as major reasons why the first inhabitants chose to settle down in
this place.
B. Status of Research The first systematic excavation of a
Neolithic mound in Central-West
Anatolia began in 1995 at Ulucak
which was directed by Altan
Çilingiroğlu of İzmir Ege University
until 2009. Starting with 2009 season,
the supervision of the excavation will
be carried out by Özlem Çevik of
University of Thrace in Edirne. As it
was mentioned before, the mound was
discovered by David French in 1960
(French 1965) and was once again
visited by Recep Meriç in the late
1980’s (Meriç 1993). Both researchers
have suggested that the mound contains, among others, Neolithic deposits. This is based
upon the abundance of red-slipped pottery which occurs on the surface of the mound.
The excavations at Ulucak Höyük originally started, not because of the potential it held
for the West Anatolian Neolithic period, but because it was under threat by construction
activities undertaken by the adjacent tobacco factory. It was also a good field training
opportunity for students from the Department of Protohistory and Near Eastern
Archaeology of Ege University in İzmir. Excavations in the first two years were carried
out under this impetus. In these first two seasons however, it became clear that this
mound contained substantial information on the pre-Bronze Age periods – of which
happen to be very well-preserved at the site.
Figure 3.4: Excavated areas on the mound.
38
Since 1999, the excavations at the site were intensified. The main aim was to reveal the
Neolithic settlement in a wide area. For this reason, the excavations were carried out
mainly on a horizontal axis. Through this strategy a good deal of the Early Chalcolithic
settlement –with thirteen structures, two open areas and two courtyards – could be
exposed.
Since 2003, the cultural remains that are older than the exposed settlement (Level IV) are
under investigation. For this reason, at some selected areas (N11 and L13) the remains of
Level IV were removed. Earlier remains were uncovered in both grids, especially at
trench L13 where these deposits were excavated in an area of ca. 100 m2, which provides
us with a good idea of how earlier buildings look like. As of 2006 approximately 900 m2
of the mound had been exposed (Fig. 3.4).
Several preliminary reports have appeared in Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı booklets (Derin
and Öner 1996; Abay, Sağlamtimur and Özkan 1999; Derin, Abay and Özkan 2001;
Derin and Çilingiroğlu 2002; Derin, Çilingiroğlu and Taşlıalan 2004; Çilingiroğlu and
Dedeoğlu 2007). Additionally, the initial results that were obtained between 1995 and
2002 were published in 2004 as a monograph (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004) with special
emphasis on Level IV. The monograph also contains a chapter on the paleogeography
written by İlhan Kayan which includes crucial information on the geographical,
botanical and climatic characteristics of the region where Ulucak is located. Another
very significant study undertaken at Ulucak Höyük by Kayan and his team was core
drilling, whose results are also presented in the monograph. With the help of core
drilling the height of the archaeological accumulation, geographical sedimentation and
clues on settlement history could be obtained.
A number of archaeometrical analyses were conducted by Greek colleagues, as a joint
project, whose results were published collectively in the fifth issue of the journal
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. The articles include preliminary results
for zoological, malacological and botanical studies, as well as for chemical analyses
carried out on pottery sherds with an ED-X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer and for obsidian
hydration analyses (Trantaloudi 2005; Karali 2005; Megaloudi 2005; Liritzis 2005). The
same issue also contains an article on the updated information on the excavations at
Ulucak with information on Level Va (Çilingiroğlu and Abay 2005).
39
Additionally, archaeozoological and archaeomalacalogical remains from Chalcolithic
and EBA levels were studied by a team from the University of Tübingen under the
supervision of H.P. Uerpmann. Archaeozoological, archeogenetical and -botanical
studies as well as studies on lithic material from Ulucak continue to date.
C. Excavation Techniques
Before the actual excavations took place at the site the mound and its surrounding areas
were measured, drawn and finally divided into grids, each of which measure 10 x 10
meters. These grids are named on the “x” axis from A until TT and on the “y” axis from
1 to 25.
The borders of the cultural deposits were far better understood after core drillings were
carried out at the site in 1997. Nevertheless, the excavations are concentrated on the
center of the mound where the best preservation was detected.
The actual excavation area at Ulucak measures 9 x 9 meters and almost all of the
trenches have an area of 100 m2, which includes 50 cm thick grid walls on each side.
Each trench is divided into four grids which are named with letters in lowercase from “a”
until “d,” starting from the Northwest corner going clockwise. Each grid in a trench
represents an area of approximately 20 m2.
During the excavation pottery, small finds, samples for archaeometrical analysis, and
animal remains that originate from the same context are documented on a so-called
“buluntu fişi” and each context receives a unique code referring to one excavation unit.
The name of the find, date, trench name, elevation(s), grid name, location of the find,
and the name of the excavator can be found on this sheet. The pottery, or same types of
finds that are thought to appear in the same features, is collected in the same plastic bags.
When a change in the color of the soil or in the feature is recognized a new bag is opened
and a new “buluntu fişi” is filled out which corresponds to a new context. The excavator
has the initiative to provide as much detailed information as he/she wishes. He/she also
has to keep a daily report and a sketch of the trench. The trench supervisor is also
responsible for taking photos.
The excavation at the site is normally carried out with the use of small picks and brushes
by experienced workers whose work is under the constant supervision of the
archaeologists. Mud-brick walls, storage bins, hearths or ovens are excavated by the
40
archaeologists. It is also the trench supervisor’s decision to take soil samples for various
analyses as well as to let soil samples to be sieved in some cases. During the excavation
the soil is not regularly sieved.
The final processes concerning the finds take place at the excavation house. Here the
finds receive a so-called “excavation code” which is made upon three letters that are
written in uppercase, starting from AAA and lasting until ZZZ. Finds which were
recovered in the same context or that were collected together receive one common code
representing one single excavation unit. For example, in trench N12c the finds (pottery,
flint tools, bones, etc.) that were found in and around the oven would receive one code.
The information that belongs to this code is entered into a notebook and into the File
Maker Pro database which was developed in the 1990’s. Unique finds, such as a whole
vessel, a figurine or a stamp, receive their own individual code independent of the
related finds. The associated finds for these pieces can be found in the database or in the
diaries. By making a query of an excavation code in the databank one can reach
information concerning one excavation unit including the date, the find categories, the
elevations, grid name and notes.
The pottery also receives a unique numerical code. Each diagnostic sherd that was drawn
has an excavation code and a drawing number, both of which can be found written on the
sherd. The information about each sherd is provided by the illustrator and entered into
the database. This information contains the color, surface treatment(s), firing, inclusions,
and dimensions. However, since many people take part in this process, the data provided
about the sherds are not always reliable. In this study this information is not included in
any of the analyses.
D. Stratigraphy of the Mound
The stratigraphical sequence at the site is made mainly during the excavation at the
current area under excavation. Architectural remains and soil properties help to define
many of these sequences. Post-excavation processes, especially evaluation of the pottery
and other small finds, are also important in terms of constructing a clear stratigraphical
sequence for the mound.
It was apparent from the beginning that the mound consisted of a number of occupations.
Through excavations in several trenches it became clear that apart from the Neolithic
remains höyük contains archaeological deposits from Early Byzantine/Late Roman,
41
Early Bronze Age, as well as Middle-Late Chalcolithic periods. The latest remains were
designated as “Level I” which has three sub-phases. Bronze Age levels at the site are
labeled as “Level II,” with three sub-phases. “Level III” represents the Middle/Late
Chalcolithic period. Layers which revealed Neolithic material were identified as “Level
IV,” with ten sub-phases that utilize lowercase letters from “a” to “k;” “b” is divided
into sub-phases, as IVb1 and IVb2. The (pre)historical periods which are represented by
these levels are identified mainly through pottery comparisons. Middle and Late Bronze
age pottery has also been found at the site but no related architecture could be identified.
A pithos cemetery from these periods was excavated in the vicinity of the site. Level III
could only were uncovered in two trenches (O12, O13) where a small section of a
destroyed structure is preserved. The periodization of this level relies entirely on pottery
comparisons which according to the excavators indicate similarities with Baklatepe and
Ilıpınar V materials (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004).
As mentioned above, the best preserved deposits at the site belong to Level IV. By 2001,
600 of 750 m2 of excavated area belonged to this level. This level was identified as “Late
Neolithic- Early Chalcolithic” based largely
on the red-slipped pottery with vertical
tubular lugs; a pottery type which is very
well-known at West Anatolian and Lake
District sites. Level IVb represents the best
preserved architecture at the site and is
detected all over the mound through
horizontal excavations during which two
building phases belonging to IVb were
identified. Some earlier building phases
belonging to Level IV were met at trench
N11, where a deep sounding was made.
Below the IVb settlement eight additional
architectural phases were found, most of
which contain only floors, floor-like hard
surfaces, post-holes and stone foundations. Since these earlier remains did not preserve
well and could only be excavated in a limited area, it is difficult to tell whether they
could be present in the entire mound. There are few other architectural elements which
Figure 3.5: Above - an ideal (i.e., it would never exist) stratigraphy. Below - a realistic one (After Jablonka 2000: Fig. 4)
42
are associated with these floors. Each of these floors was interpreted as one building
phase (IV c-f).
Phases IV g-k, on the other hand, are surprisingly better preserved and therefore have
architectural features like well-defined tone foundations, pavements and plastered floors.
These phases, which were excavated in one grid, are applied to the overall stratigraphy
of the mound, which naturally could not be revealed in all excavated areas (Fig. 3.5). At
trench L13, where another deep sounding has taken place, only three of these phases
could be recovered. Since there is no stratigraphical relation between grids N11 and L13,
it is not possible to tell which sub-phases correspond to each other. The identification of
these phases at the second trench does not rely on Harris Matrices but on the properties
of floors, architectural techniques and soil properties. It is perfectly normal that each
excavated area on a mound would reveal its own unique stratigraphy (Jablonka 2000).
However, it is impossible to define the relationship between two trenches (or two
structures) that are located far apart from one another when they share no identifying
characteristics (like abrupt change in the pottery typology, architectural technique etc.).
In this case, the stratigraphical sequence applied to the whole mound should be general
rather than detailed. Every single trench would have its own unique stratigraphical
sequence.
In Ulucak’s case, since there is no clear break in the pottery tradition along the sequence,
pottery comparisons would not be very helpful in creating a detailed stratigraphical
analysis. However, at Ulucak architectural techniques show an abrupt change; for
example, a change from wattle-and-daub to mud-brick architecture. Therefore
stratigraphical correlations between grids L13 and N11 can be established once the mud-
brick architecture disappears.
The most informative phases of Level IV are IV b1 and 2. These phases, which end with
an accidental fire disaster, provide valuable information on the settlement layout,
architecture, and architectural elements as well as on pottery, stone tools or other small
finds (many of which were unearthed in undisturbed contexts). A number of the
rectilinear mud-brick structures were found with their walls preserved up to two meters,
indicating extraordinary preservation. A total of thirteen structures, two courtyards and
two open areas similar to courtyards constitute this phase. Together they present a good
picture of the settlement layout. Almost all we know from Level IV actually comes from
these phases. Building phase IVa, which was considerably damaged and therefore could
43
not be seen in other excavated parts of the mound, represents the latest LN/EC
occupation at the site before its final abandonment in the early 6th Millennium BCE.
In 2003 and 2004, when deep soundings were carried out, an older architectural level
below Level IV was identified. Dramatic differences in this new architecture in
comparison to the previous level’s led excavators to name this settlement as “Level V.”
This level was created in order to emphasize its distinguished characteristics as being
part of an older settlement. The defining feature of Level V is its wattle and daub
architecture. Mud-bricks are completely lacking in this older phase. Nevertheless, the
general character of the material culture shows clear parallels to the overlying Level IV.
Level V also has a number of sub-phases. In 2004, remains from the latest phase of this
level, Va, were exposed in two trenches (N11 and L13). One of the distinguishing
artifact groups from this level is comprised of large amounts of sling missiles that were
found in various structures (22, 27 and 28). They were uncovered either in piles or
scattered around storage vessels.
In fall 2005 and 2006 at trench L13, another older phase was found. Named as Vb, this
phase is represented by three relatively well-preserved structures (Buildings 30, 31 and
33). Building 30 apparently experienced a fire that is responsible for the present-day, in-
situ preservation of many of the archaeological items. The building contained, amongst
other pieces,11 clay storage units and 25 pottery vessels. At the same trench, a small
sondage area revealed three sub-phases (Vc,d,e) which are not as well-preserved as those
found in the upper layer, but contained postholes, burnt surfaces and many small objects.
Architectural remains from Vb were also excavated in the neighboring trench K13,
where “Building 32” is located.
Even earlier occupational layers in grid L13 were excavated since 2006. These sub-
layers, Vc-f and VIa, have not been included in this study. It suffices us to mention here
that the free-standing rectilinear houses built with wattle-and-daub building technique
continue in these earlier phases. One exception is from Vd which contained massive
stone foundations. Phases Vc and Vf included remains of burnt buildings (Building 40),
post-holes and various pits.
Sub-phase VIa is distinguished from all the upper occupations by its brightly painted red
lime floor which has at least three renewal phases. The lime layer is 1 cm thick and
44
contains small grits as tempering material. Such floors are known from PPN sites in the
Levant and in southeastern and Central Anatolia (Bentur et al. 1991). Aşıklı and Musular
are two of the PPN sites where red painted lime floors were excavated (Özbaşaran 2003).
In West Anatolia, Hacılar’s “Aceramic Phase” IV, II and I, Bademağacı ENI-8 and Hoca
Çeşme’s earliest Level 7 (phase IV) revealed such floors (Mellaart 1970: 4; Duru 2007:
344 and Özdoğan 2007b: 415 respectively). Red painted lime floors definitely have their
origins in PPN Southwest Asia. Presence or persistence of this activity at Ulucak’s
earliest deposits, dated to 7910±50 BP (7040-6640 cal. BCE), might entail clues in terms
of the origins of the initial inhabitants at Ulucak.
E. Radiocarbon Dates from Ulucak
There are 26 carbon samples from the Ulucak Levels IV, V and VI.9 The majority of the
samples were analyzed by the Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory in Florida,
USA. Three samples were dated by Köln University Radiocarbon Laboratory. With the
exception of a single shell, all of the samples were obtained from charred material,
mainly charred wood. Some of the samples were analyzed with the conventional C14
method but the majority were analyzed using the AMS method.10
Carbon dates tend to be frequently misinterpreted in Anatolian prehistory simply due to
the fact that some of the significant aspects of the carbon data are not taken into
consideration. It needs to be recognized that the samples do not “date” our
archaeological levels, but the radiocarbon method provides us with the date when the
sampled organism ceases to live. The samples might stem from organic materials that
died long before they were deposited in the archaeological record, especially if they
belong to long-lived species like oak or juniper, commonly found at Anatolian sites
(Cessford 2002: 28). In other words, they can be older than the cultural remains, thereby
providing only a terminus post quem (Wagner 1998: 136). This possibility, also known
as “old wood effect”, should always be considered when interpreting radiocarbon dates
and constructing absolute chronologies (Bowman 1990: 15). This is also the reason why
many scholars emphasize that “one sample is no sample” meaning a settlement, phase or
an event cannot be securely dated relying only on a single sample. Secondly, by dating a
sample, one dates a single event – such as the death of an organism, for example. The
9 For all the dates obtained from Ulucak so far please refer the list at the end of the study. 10 It should be noted that marine organisms like shells yield dates that are older than the contemporary non-marine organisms due to the marine reservoir effect. In order to use the dates that are obtained from such samples, there must be local calibration curves (Renfrew and Bahn 2004:147; Bowman 1990: 24-25).
45
result does not provide us with the information of how long a building level was
occupied. The sigma probability ranges that one obtains after the calibration should
never be interpreted and used in this direction. The standard deviations (error margins)
should not be ignored, either. It is common practice to eliminate dates with large
standard deviations from the overall analysis (Bowman 1990).
Different radiocarbon laboratories may deliver varying results on one sample or one
sample when divided into two may well provide non-identical results (Buck, Litton and
Scott 1994: 252). With regards to the interpretation and use of carbon dates it is worth
presenting two examples here that will hopefully demonstrate our point. The first
example draws from one single deposit sampled during the Ulucak excavations (EFH)
and subsequently sent to two different radiocarbon laboratories (Beta-212086 and KN-
5783). Although the results turned out to be fairly close to each other, the error margins
are not matching (Beta-212086: 7380±60 BP and KN-5783: 7315±35 BP). Like the first
example, the second sample was divided into two and dated by a single laboratory (KN-
5782 and KN-5781). Once again the results were close to one another but not identical
(7340±40 and 7280±35 respectively). In conclusion, as long as one does not interpret the
carbon dates too literally, they can provide the most reliable basis for a chronology.
Figure 3.6: Combination of two dates from Level IVb.
46
Carbon dates from Ulucak’s varying building phases present us with a coherent and
reliable picture.11 Extremely old or young dates do not occur. Most of the dates seem to
be in accordance with the others and with the stratigraphical context they originated
from. Additionally, Ulucak carbon dates are in accordance with the dates that are known
from other Anatolian Neolithic sites. However, one should be aware of the old wood
effect, since most samples are obtained from charred wood, including in some cases
structural wood. There are indeed some samples that seem to stem from old wood used
in the architecture or from old rings. Since the recycling of wood used in architecture is a
well-documented phenomenon in Southwest Asia, the possibility should always be kept
in mind.
Beta-223540 (7540±110 BP), Beta-223542 (7490±40 BP), Beta-212087 (7520±40 BP)
and Beta-223545 (7760±40 BP) are likely candidates of old wood that would have
created the effect because they provided older dates than the samples that originate from
the same deposits. Additionally, the date obtained from a shell (Beta-212087) also
provided an early date, 7520±40 BP, when compared to other dates from the same phase.
This date can also be excluded from the overall analysis because, as mentioned already,
calibration of marine samples is problematic due to marine reservoir effect.
Beta-223540, which has a big error margin at 7540±110, might be removed for the sake
of the analysis.
Three out of four samples from building phase Vf were obtained from structural wood,
i.e. from inside the postholes belonging to Building 40. For the time being, it is not
possible to comment on the tree species used in the building of the house but the woods
used for the construction do not stem from old trees because they are only 4 to 7 cm in
diameter. The fourth sample from phase Vf was collected from inside the Building 40
and it is likewise a small charcoal piece. When calibrated, all four dates overlap in a
range from 6440-6250 BC at one sigma.
Only two radiocarbon dates are available from Level IVb. The combination of those two
dates (Beta-178748 and Beta-178747) provided the value 6949±46 BP and 5890-5760 11 All Ulucak dates and other dates were calibrated using OxCal 3.10 software developed by Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit of Oxford University (Copyright C Bronk Ramsey 2005). Functions SUM and COMBINE embedded in the software program OxCal 10 were frequently used in this study. Sum function is used to estimate a time range for a certain phase or period whereas combine function is used to calculate an average date using various samples from the same stratigraphical layer (Schoop and Seeher 2006: 55-56).
47
cal. BCE at 1 sigma (Fig. 3.6). The sum of the carbon dates from Level Vb results in a
range 6430-6080 cal. BCE with 68.2% probability. The combination of five carbon dates
from Phase Vd provides the date 6300 cal BCE while sum of four carbon dates from
sub-phase Vf provides a range from 6440-6250 with 68.2% probability and 6470-6220
cal. BCE with 95.4% probability (Fig. 3.7).
Two carbon dates are available from sub-phase VIa: Beta-250265 (7910±50 BP) and
Beta-250266 (7770±50 BP). When calibrated at 2 sigma, the first date gives the range
7040-6640 cal. BCE. The second one is 6680-6480 cal. BCE at 2 sigma range. Sum of
these two dates provide a range between 6800-6500 cal. BCE at 1 sigman range. These
two dates indicate clearly that the site was already occupied around 6500 cal. BCE. Beta-
250265 (7910±50 BP) is especially important in terms of dating the horizon of red
painted lime floor as this sample stems from that deposit and was sampled on a small
charcoal piece. Unfortunately, the flat section (low gradient) in the calibration curve
around 8000 BP is problematic and causes a wide time span for this date, even though
the date itself has a low standard deviation.12
If we employ the method used by Cessford (2005: 77) who calculated the occupation
length at Çatalhöyük East by estimating the elapsed time between the earliest and latest
carbon determinations, we may as well extract the approximate length of occupation at
Ulucak IV-V. The complete range of the calibrated dates from Ulucak falls between
7040-5660 cal. BCE (at 2 sigma) and 7000-5790 BCE (at 1 sigma). The length of the
occupation duration is estimated as 1120-790 years at one sigma range and 1140-980 12 See Bowman 1990 and Buck, Litton and Scott 1994: 256-257 on the flat sections in calibration curve and their impact on archaeological interpretation of radiocarbon dates.
Figure 3.7: Left: Sum of six dates from Level Vb; Right: Sum of four dates from Level Vf.
48
calender years at two sigma range. It is for the moment not clear whether the site was
really occupied at the end of 8th millennium cal BCE as the carbon dates indicate. One
can tentatively suggest that the mound was occupied for around 800-1000 years before
its abandonment around 5700/5600 cal BCE. Available carbon dates indicate that Ulucak
is the only excavated site in Central-West Anatolia that contains such a long continuous
sequence of archaeological deposits, providing us with the perfect opportunity for
reconstructing the complete Neolithic sequence in the region. However, new samples on
short-lived organisms are necessary to confirm our statements regarding the duration of
the inhabitation on the mound concerning the era of the early farmers.
F. General Characteristics of the Architecture
The details of the architecture at Ulucak have already been presented in several recent
publications (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004; Abay 2005; Derin 2005). Only the major attributes
of the architectural techniques, materials and planning will be discussed here. This
information was predominantly extracted from daily excavation reports kept by Atilla
Batmaz, Fulya Dedeoğlu, Mücella Erdalkıran, Mehmet Işıklı, Haluk Sağlamtimur,
Osman Karadağ, Ali Ozan, Göksel Önder, and myself.
1. Level IV
Houses at Ulucak IVb were built on stone foundations with mud-brick and wood. The
plans are always rectilinear with defined corners. The walls are up to 0.8 meter thick and
2 meters high and are built with standard sized mud-brick blocks (Photo Plate 2).
Dividing walls are seen frequently. Walls and floors are frequently plastered whereas
painting has only been detected in two structures. Wood is an important building
material for the buildings and is used both for the roof frame and as a support. Evidence
of wooden posts comes from Buildings 2, 3, 8, and 13. Actual remains of burnt wooden
beams were found in Building 13 in 2001. The roofs were most probably flat. Although
presence of central posts at Buildings 8 and 13 might speak for gabled roofs,
archaeological evidence presents us with the opposite suggestion. Collapsed roofs were
encountered during the excavations at several places. On at least one of them grinding
instruments were recovered, this means that the roofs were flat and were used as activity
areas.13 On the other hand, buildings from contemporary Anatolian sites have mostly
flat-roofs, except at Ilıpınar (Roodenberg 1999: Fig. 3). There is no evidence of a second
13 Personal communication with Fulya Dedeoğlu.
49
story in any of the houses. Internal division of space does not seem to be occurring
frequently at the settlement, although a few of the houses (Buildings 12, 13 and 8) have
partitions or rooms inside (Plan 1). There is evidence of leveling in Building 8 where a
platform with a hearth and a storage bin was found at an elevation lower than the house
floor. Two separate spaces can be observed in Building 13, one containing an oven and
the other two hearths. Building 12 seems to have a partition wall, which divides the inner
space into two. Hearths, ovens, ash pits and mud platforms are architectural elements
that appear in almost every building. Storage bins appear as well, although not as often
as the above mentioned features. It is possible that the clay storage units did not survive
under the heavy collapsed walls and roofs.
Three courtyards were identified at the exposed areas and probably belong to Houses 5,
13 and 19 (Plan 1). Enclosure walls of courtyards are made with wattle and daub
technique. Evidence for post holes was found at Courtyard 9 of Structure 5, which
indicate that this courtyard was covered with a roof. Courtyards bear evidence of daily
activities like cooking and grinding as well as of grain storage.
Earlier building phases of Level IV were excavated mainly at N11 (Plan 2.1). Additional
but restricted remains from these phases were obtained from soundings at L13 and O11.
Phase IVg was identified northwest of N11 and was later named as “Building 17.” It has
burnt mud-brick fragments, a yellowish plastered floor and double-rowed, middle-sized,
rounded stones (20-30 cm in diameter) as foundations (Photo Plate 2.2). Phase IVk has
comparable properties whose remains were preserved only through foundations made
out of three rows of rounded stones that seem to have been brought from the river bed. A
distinctive feature of this structure is that it has a floor paved with stones of 10-20 cm in
diameter, which was covered with a thin layer of white plaster. A very similar
architectural activity is mentioned by Mellaart (1970: 4) who describes some of the
floors of aceramic buildings which were “laid on a bed of small stones or pebbles
covered with a lime plaster…These floors were stained with red ochre, varying in shade
from light red to crimson, which was burnished when dry.” The reasons behind
constructing stone foundations with such care or stone pavements at Ulucak remain
unclear. Cobble paving is observed many times under the fire installations to provide
heat isolation and as protection against moisture. One tends to suggest the same concerns
might be at stake for the building from IVk. However, it seems like this technique was
not common at the site, neither in the earlier nor later phases. It is basically unknown
50
whether such foundations and floors were executed all over the IVk settlement or if their
use was only at a restricted number of houses.
During the excavations at L13, where transitional phases from IV to V were also
exposed, comparable architectural features were not found. As mentioned before, it is
highly likely that these phases are not represented at trench L13 due to differing
stratigraphy, but this explanation does not provide a clarification for our question.
Alternatively, there could be a cultural explanation behind this building strategy. It is
worth reminding that these phases (IV g-k) bear the earliest evidence of mud-brick
houses with stone foundations at Ulucak, which were maybe built with specially selected
rounded stones of similar sizes. Foundation stones of later phases are smaller and such
diligence cannot be observed in their execution.
2. Level V
The settlement that preceded Level IVk shows a differing architectural pattern, in terms
of the building technique, thus it was named as a different level (Fig. 3.8). This level is
characterized by post-wall buildings, evident in the surviving thin mud walls with 10-15
Figure 3.8: Phase Va at trench L13, where five adjacent structures containing evidence of storage facilities and food preparation areas were excavated. Note the concentrations of animal remains and flints in the open areas.
51
cm wide post holes.14 Level V comprises of several superimposed architectural layers.
Layer Va is distinguished from the preceding layers (Vb-Vf) with respect to its adjacent
houses. Starting with layer Vb the post-wall houses are free-standing (Plan 3.1). In some
cases relatively big sections of wooden posts have survived (as in L13d, Vb). Mud-brick
as a building material cannot be observed in this settlement. Stone foundations are rarely
observed in this phase. Buildings 22-26 in Grid L13 do not have stone foundations while
Building 32 in Grid K13 was built on stone foundations.
Plastering, both inner and outer surfaces of walls and floors, was confirmed at some
buildings. The walls of the structures are considerably thin and do not exceed 25 cm.
Since some of the buildings from this level could be excavated completely, the sizes of
some buildings are known to us. For instance, Building 23 measures 5 x 4.5 m. Building
27 has a relatively small size with 2 x 1.7 m. Building 30 from Vb, almost square in
shape, measures approximately 4.5 x 4.5 m (Photo Plate 4). Although the plans are
rectilinear, it is observed that the corners are rounded as a consequence of the building
technique. Compared to the mud-brick architecture of Level IVb, the preservation of this
settlement is much lower. Surprisingly, the storage elements in this level are better
preserved. Every structure has storage facilities like free-standing mud boxes or circular
bins that are attached to the side walls. These facilities were found in particularly well
preserved conditions in Buildings 22, 23, 28 from Va as well as in Building 30 and 33
from Level Vb. Hearths and ovens are also features that each house possesses.
Unfortunately, the original height of the walls and shape of the roofs cannot be
ascertained.
G. Settlement Organization at Ulucak
Demoule and Perlès (1993) have identified common characteristics of EN settlements on
Thessalian Plain which, in my opinion, can be easily employed to Ulucak IV-V. As these
features are significant in terms of understanding the settlement organization they are
enumerated here:
1. Location of settlements on alluvial-colluvial plains;
2. Long-term occupation indicating social as well as economic stability;
3. Clay-based architectural techniques;
4. Vertical development of settlements as opposed to horizontal; 14 For further description of architectural details see Çilingiroğlu and Abay 2005 and Çilingiroğlu and Dedeoğlu 2006.
52
5. Settlement size between 2-5.5 ha. (meaning populations of 100-300 and
more);
6. Absence of surrounding walls;
7. Absence of monumental architecture.
All of these characteristics are actually encountered at early Ulucak which has a size of
roughly 3 ha. These specific features are expedient in terms of understanding the
strategies, ideology or conscious choices made by the community concerning the initial
and developmental stages of settlement history. To be able to discuss the details of
settlement organization several indicative criteria need to be considered. These are the
orientation of the structures, amount of space between these structures, existence of
communal activity areas, existence of communal storage facilities and presence of
buildings with special functions (Eslick 1988; Perlès 2001). Below, Levels IV and V will
be evaluated in the framework of these specific aspects.
1. Level IV
It has already been mentioned that at Ulucak the best preserved and widely exposed
areas belong to Level IV, which is dated to around 5800-5700 cal. BCE.
1.1. Orientation and size of the buildings
At the site a major part of this settlement was excavated on a horizontal level, which
enables us to make statements concerning the settlement layout. First of all, no
unification in the orientation of the structures can be observed. For example, it is not like
at Lepenski Vir where each structure has its door opening towards one direction or at
Nea Nikomedeia where all structures bear an East-West direction (Srejović 1972;
Rodden 1965). At Ulucak, the entrances look towards the open areas in the settlement;
which are named by the excavators as “streets” but which I refer to here as “open areas.”
There were two open areas identified at Ulucak and one can see that Buildings 5, 6, 10,
12, 13, and 19 have their entrances on one of these open areas,15 which itself has a
North-South orientation (Plan 1). The smaller open space to the southwest of the
exposed areas has Building 14 and probably Building 8 on it. It can be said that
buildings at Ulucak were built to cluster around an open (perhaps communal) area that
provided access to most of the buildings. We do not know if these two open areas were
connected to each other. It is possible that there were more than one cluster at the 15 Since door openings were identified at Ulucak, one can state that the access to the inner spaces was not provided from the roof. However, archaeological evidence suggests that activities took place on roofs as well.
53
settlement that appeared as the number of households increased. Unfortunately, we do
not know exactly where the border of the settlement was lying. However, it is highly
likely that Neolithic Ulucak reached its biggest size towards the later phases of Level IV,
e.g. just before it was wholly burnt and abandoned in a short time.
The size of the structures that are exposed at Ulucak show uniformity. Among the
buildings that were wholly exposed or whose plans could be reconstructed are Buildings
5, 6, 8, and 13, of which measure in size as 6 x 6.5, 6 x 5, 8 x 6, and 6 x 2 meters
respectively. Sizes of the other structures seem to accord with these figures. None of the
buildings have unusually bigger size. The approximate size of a building at Ulucak IV
would then be around 40 m2.
1.2. Space between the structures
Another important feature is the amount of space between the structures. The general
plan of Ulucak IVb shows that most of the buildings at the site were not free-standing
(Plan 1; Photo Plate 2.1). There is however some space between some of the structures.
For example, Building 19 and 13 have approximately half a meter space in between.
However, Building 5 and 6 have adjacent walls; and the north wall of Building 6 forms
the south wall of a courtyard, which seems to belong to Building 5. It can be stated that
Ulucak had a “degenerated” agglomerative plan, i.e. definitely not as strict as in
Aşıklıhöyük or Çatalhöyük. Choice for an agglomerative plan by a society at any given
settlement might have had technological, economic, social and/or ideological grounds. It
is widely known that adjacent structures keep and transfer heat as well as providing a
feeling of protection. Such a plan might as well transmit a message of solidarity to the
outsider. On the other hand, it is possible that adjacent buildings represent households
that are offsprings of the parents’ household. Each cluster might represent families with
a common ancestor that has its origin at the oldest household. The proximity of the
houses at Ulucak might hint at an egalitarian community, where socio-economical
independence from the other inhabitants did not exist and was not sought. The adjacent
walls did not only keep heat but also demonstrated strong economical as well as social
bonds among the individual households. Lastly, the small amount of space among the
structures might be an indication of a transitional phase to the fully free-standing
buildings of the later periods like the megara of the Aegean Early Bronze Age.
54
1.3. Evidence of communal activity areas
The existence of communal activity areas also gives us clues about the social
organization at the settlement. During the excavations at the site some of the areas
yielded evidence of pottery production, weaving or food preparation. In some areas piles
of flintstones were uncovered, which are interpreted as “workshops.” What we need to
look at is if they are located in a communal area or do they belong to single households?
When we look at the open areas, we can see limited evidence of communal activity.
During the excavations of the so-called “north street” grinding instruments and stone
tools were mainly found; these pieces might well have been used by every member of
the community. One interesting concentration appeared in the northern part of the open
area where a number of perforators and sea shells were found belonging to the Phase
IVb. Presence of a hole on these sea shells led the excavators to interpret them as
necklace pieces. It is possible that this used to be an area (M13b) where sea shells were
pierced in order to make various adornments.
In another area (Building 15 of IVc) a concentration of clay balls, grinding stones and
flint pieces were found. Although this area is named “Building 15,” no walls that might
belong to this structure were found. Building 15 refers to a floor which is described as
moist, black colored, clayed, and beaten, and is identified as belonging to building Phase
IVc. For this reason, it is not clear whether there was a roofed structure located here.
Existence of various sized clay balls between a hearth and grinding instruments might
suggest that in this area activities related either to cooking or to clay processing for
pottery, sling stones or other objects have taken place. Just to the north of this complex
high amounts of flint pieces were recovered that were originally put into a bowl that was
found upside down. What is interesting about the flint stone concentration is that in the
upper building layer (IVb2) piles of flint stones were again recovered in the same area.
This situation might suggest that this activity area had more than one phases and the
floors identified at this area might correspond to successive phases of a “workshop”
where community members or members of several households came together in order to
undertake their daily activities.
55
A different type of concentration can be observed in Building 12 of IVb2. Inside the
building a number of loom weights were found together (Derin, Çilingiroğlu and
Taşlıalan 2003). What makes this group more interesting than other loom weight
concentrations is the fact that close to this area a stamp was discovered (Fig. 3.9). It is
known that stamps are thought to be applied either to skin or textiles to make
impressions. Evidence of a stamp together with loom weights can be used to support this
suggestion as well as to interpret this part of the building as an area where weaving took
place (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. in press). Nevertheless, the accessibility of this building by the
whole community remains unclear; rather, it seems to belong to a single household.
Another area of interest here is Building 6, where evidence of pottery production was
verified. Here remains of a hearth with pottery slags were found. Apart from two
platforms in the room, there were clay balls, whole vessels, flat stones and grinding
instruments on the floor; all of which could were utilized during various stages of pottery
making. A more probable function associated with clay balls is cooking, which might
have been used for indirect boiling or baking of food in baskets, skin containers, as well
as in ovens (Atalay and Hastorf 2005: 118-119). The presence of numerous flint flakes
on one of the platforms and in a bowl with a figurine and loom weights might be
indications of other activities carried out in the same structure.
Figure 3.9: Building 12, area with concentration of loomweights and a stamp.
56
Lastly, I would like to present another area where a different activity can be identified.
This is probably an open area from one of the earliest phases of Level IV at Trench L13
and was named Building 29 during the excavations because of the plaster pieces
appearing in the immediate area. The concentration at this locale is dominated by flint
and obsidian flakes, sling missiles, bone objects and animal remains, including many
horn fragments and sea shells. It appears that this was mainly an area where either
animals were slaughtered or their remains were processed to make tools. The additional
presence of sea shells in the same area might also point to the fact that this area was used
for the consumption of shellfish or for the processing of shell adornments.
1.4. Communal storage facilities
Although storage bins or vessels were not found at every building at Ulucak IV, this
does not point to a communal storage at the site because there was no evidence of this
either. It is significant that at Building 13 a wooden grain chest was found. It was
preserved together with the actual grains, charred but identified as six rowed barley
(Hordeum vulgare). In the same building a large-sized jar, 61 cm in height, was also
discovered and was most likely utilized as a storage unit.
Good evidence for food storage appeared at Building 8, where the southeastern part of
the building was used as a storeroom. Grain concentrations analyzed from this part of the
building revealed more than 15000 pieces of einkorn wheat (Megaloudi 2005). The
condition of preservation at the other structures might not have been optimal like in
Buildings 8 and 13 where heavy fire caused favorable conditions for the organic
remains. Containers made of unbaked clay might have disappeared among the debris of
collapsed roofs and walls, whereas wooden or skin containers could not survive at all.
Other areas where evidence of storage was attested are within Courtyards 11 and 20,
where a total of two storage bins were uncovered. Bins were also found in Buildings 6,
13 and 4.
Storage of agricultural products definitely took place at the settlement; however, one can
not speak of a communal one. It is highly likely that every household had its own grain,
food or salt storage facilities.
1.5. Presence of buildings or areas for ritual activities
The identification of “special buildings” at prehistoric sites is a highly debated issue.
There was critique against the way in which Mellaart at Çatalhöyük or Gimbutas at
57
Achilleion identified some buildings as “shrines,” which loads a purely religious
function to specific structures (Düring 2002; Perlès 2001). Hodder, for example, prefers
“ritually elaborate building” instead of “shrine” as a designation (Hodder 1999: 179).
There are mainly two parameters which let archaeologists designate some structures as
“special.” One is based on the unusual plan and/or location of a structure and the other
relates to the extraordinary appearance of the material discovered in a structure. As
Özdoğan points out, architecturally unusual buildings appear in the PPN period in
Southwest Asia, which he prefers to call “cult buildings.” In other parts of Anatolia the
size or plan of the buildings give no clues about the function related to them (Özdoğan
2002b). At such regions in Anatolia and Southeast Europe the identification of special
buildings depends on the finds that are discovered in seemingly domestic structures. Red
floors at an Aşıklı building, figurines at Achilleion or wall paintings at Çatalhöyük
buildings are examples of such identifications (Esin and Harmankaya 1999; Gimbutas et
al. 1989; Mellaart 1967). The major problem with such interpretations is first of all
related to the history of these structures. It is possible that these were actually domestic
structures which at the time of the abandonment or destruction of the settlement were
given ritual function. In other words, labeling certain structures as “special” implies that
they were built and used for ritual purposes during their entire history of existence.
What is decisive for the archaeologists is the state of discovery. The presence of
figurines or wall paintings at a structure is enough to designate it as a “shrine” or
“special,” although there is a good possibility that each structure housed figurines or wall
paintings at least once in its lifetime. A situation similar to Çatalhöyük is also true for
Ulucak, where no building with unusual sizes or plans were detected.
The archaeologists who excavated at Ulucak
interpreted Building 8 as a possible “shrine”
(Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004: 25). The reason
behind this suggestion is that in this building
fragments of wall paintings and an
anthropomorphic vessel, together with
another seven well-preserved vessels, were
discovered. Moreover, the absence of stone
tools in this structure was brought forth as Figure 3.10: Painted anthropomorphic vessel as found in Building 8 (Level IVb).
58
another argument which would support this interpretation. Is the co-appearance of wall
paintings and an anthropomorphic vessel in a building enough to justify such an
interpretation?
The anthropomorphic vessels, because of their elaborate forms and designs, are as a rule
associated with rituals. At Ulucak, two anthropomorphic vessels were discovered; one is
almost complete and one is fragmentary (Plate 15.1 and 15.2). It is worth mentioning
that the relatively well-preserved anthropomorphic vessel (Excavation Unit: APJ 3032)
was found on the floor of Building 8, adjacent to its western wall (Fig. 3.10). Also within
this building, but from an unrelated context, two big concentrations of charred einkorn
wheat grains were collected.16 The area that revealed these charred grains was in front of
the remains of a wall with evidence of paint. More interestingly, this area was a separate
section in this structure where food storage and preparation took place, and where the
elevation was 30 cm lower than the floor level. This brings us to the interpretation of the
whole building again. It is relatively clear that the vessel, wall paintings and the charred
grains were not related to each other directly. It is much more plausible that grain storage
took place in a separate part of the building (with lower elevation), whose walls were
probably painted (wholly or in designs). It is possible that grain storage, in other words,
the agricultural product, was given special treatment. It not only had to be protected from
insects and moisture but also from the “evil-eye,” through apotrepaic designs. On the
other hand, it can not be ruled out that the anthropomorphic vessel might have had a
ritual function. The question is whether the existence of such vessels affected the space
surrounding them, giving the room an additional ritual substance. Or was the single
vessel just another pottery vessel, just like the other seven jars found in the same area?
Consequently, it is not unlikely that Building 8 (wholly or partially) was related with
ritual undertakings around the time of fire at Ulucak IVb. However, in my opinion, this
would not suggest that the building was a “shrine” of and for the whole community.
Another area that may hold a “religious function” is the southeastern part of Building 13.
In this part of the building there is a wall with red-brown painting and in front of it, a
bowl with flint chips and two figurines were discovered. It is interesting that not the
whole building but only a part of it, where these extraordinary finds were found, was
designated as “religious” (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004: 29).
16 The soil sample taken from inside the vessel revealed no botanical remains.
59
A bowl with a figurine and many flint flakes is a repeating element at Ulucak IV, which
deserves a closer look, and has already been published by Abay (2003) in detail. There
are two clear cases where this combination of finds appears. One of them is in Building
6 (Excavation Unit: ASM) and the other is in Building 13 (Excavation Unit: CYV). In
Building 6 they were found in the west section of the building, just to the south of a bin
with well-plastered walls. Other finds from this building suggest daily activities like
weaving, grinding and cooking. As mentioned above, at Building 13 they were found in
front of a wall with red paintings, whose association with hearths or ovens unearthed in
the same building remains unclear.
There are two other cases where bowls full of flint chips were discovered but they are
without figurines. However, there were figurines found close to these bowls. During the
excavations on the North street in 2001, a miniature bowl (Excavation Unit: BVS 6404)
with four flint chips and a burnt bone fragment were found; moreover, in the
neighboring context a figurine piece (Excavation Unit: BVT 766) was discovered.
Although the relation between the bowl and figurine fragment is questionable, such a
possibility can not be ruled out. What is interesting in this case is that contrary to the
others, these were recovered in an open area. Whether they were intentionally deposited
in this area is unclear. What we know is that in the open area punctured sea shells and
perforators were found, which might point to the existence of a communal activity area.
In this case, a bowl with flint chips could be part of the ordinary daily activities rather
than a ritual object.
Another curious combination is a concentration of flint pieces and a figurine found in
close proximity (Excavation Units: AZG, AZY). However, the context in this case is not
informative since these finds were recovered inside collapsed mudbrick deposits.
Besides, a bowl that would hold these flint pieces is missing in this case. Here again the
bond between these finds is admittedly skeptical. There is a possibility that the figurine
and flint flakes were not originally related to each other, but through long lasting
deterioration process they were captured in the same mudbrick dump. There is no reason
to assume that every bowl with flint flakes had a ritual meaning.
To summarize, I suggest in accordance with the excavators that bowls with figurines and
flint chips had a symbolic component. It is relatively clear that these were deposited
there deliberately. The interpretation of this deposition is rather difficult. The lithics
found in the bowls are mainly associated with tools that are used in agriculture (like
60
threshing sledges).17 Moreover, in the area where this cache was found there was one
bin, which points to the fact that this area was the storage room of Building 13.
Therefore, this deposition can be interpreted as having to do with agricultural
production, in that the cache of objects was probably used like symbolic pieces or votive
objects. They were representational agricultural tools used to help them in acquiring a
better harvest. I am inclined to interpret the two figurines, one male and one female, as
actual human beings rather than supernatural creatures or “Gods” and “Goddesses.”
They might actually represent a couple who worked together and wish that their work is
appreciated by the supernatural powers (“spirits” maybe) who would protect their
agricultural products.
Finally, I tend to oppose the idea that such caches existed only in certain buildings. On
the contrary, a house at Ulucak did not solely serve a single purpose but was used both
for ritual and domestic activities, which were not independent from one another but
rather interwoven. An activity related to agricultural production or anything related to
subsistence can easily become an object of an offering or a ritual. All of the structures
exposed reveal evidence of daily life from storage to cooking and from weaving to tool
production. It is not contradictory that at these buildings ritual objects were kept and/or
ritual ceremonies were held. During the Neolithic, in a region where cult buildings do
not exist in the settlements, it is not surprising to have evidence of ritual and daily
objects together.
Hence, the presence of special buildings at Ulucak is, as in the rest of Anatolia, a matter
of interpretation. If wall paintings, figurines or anthropomorphic vessels are to be
associated with rituals that take place regularly, then there are ritually erected buildings
at Ulucak. It is well-known that such caches or depositions might appear anywhere at a
settlement because of the changing functions of buildings throughout their lives. A
widely recognized example is that a figurine can be used during a ritual and as a toy on
the same day! Such cases remind us that functions attached to buildings as well as to
objects by people vary frequently during the active lives of these features. However, the
archaeologist only has the opportunity to, given that the object is preserved in its last
original position through the long-term processes of deterioration, “witness” one of these
functions as a “snapshot.” Another aspect that should be kept in mind is the possibility
that many rituals might have taken place in nature. Old trees, rocks, lakes and springs,
17 This information is kindly proivded by Kevin Cooney.
61
which are held sacred, are part of the history of rituals in West Anatolia. It is widely
understood that the mountains of Nif (ancient Olympus), Yamanlar and Spil (ancient
Sipylus), as well as Karagöl (Lake of Tantalus), all of which are mentioned in Greek
mythology, housed many sacred monuments already in the pre-Greek eras. Two Hittite
rock monuments are also located in the vicinity, one on the Karabel pass, which is even
mentioned by Herodotus; the other is a seated female figure with her arms on her breasts,
carved on a natural rock found east of Manisa (Bean 1967: 53-65). They all suggest
rituals taken place in nature. There is no need to mention that ethnographic records also
provide many examples of such activities that take place in open areas or outside the
settlements. Additionally, the Latmos rock paintings in Southwest Anatolia, where
according to the discoverer marriage ceremonies are pictured, could even be part of a
contemporary natural “cult building” created for rituals (Penschlow-Bindokat 2003: 29).
To conclude, with the archaeological evidence available alone from Ulucak it does not
seem likely that there were “special buildings” at the site in the sense that we know from
sites like Göbeklitepe, Çayönü or Nevalı Çori. What I would rather suggest, depending
on the archaeological evidence, is that the spheres of natural and supernatural seem to
have merged into each other without clear boundaries. It seems more like the two
spheres relied on and fed each other. In this sense, rituals could have taken place
anywhere and buildings could have been turned into temporary ritual spaces at any time.
2. Level V
2.1. Orientation and size of the buildings
Unfortunately, there is not much information from this level, which would enable us to
reconstruct the settlement organization. Architectural remains from Level Va were
exposed in two excavation grids, where a total of seven buildings were discovered. In
excavation L13 five buildings that are adjacent to each other were found. The walls have
a northeast orientation; however, it is not possible to determine the orientation of the
buildings since their door openings could not be identified. Only Building 23 from this
phase was preserved well enough to measure its size. It is 4.7 x 4.4 m. The other
buildings that are sharing walls with each other might be smaller in size. However, since
they are even more damaged it is hard to tell how big they might were.
62
In Grid N11 excavations were conducted in an even more restricted area. There, two
adjacent buildings (27 and 28) were excavated. Building 27 is quite small in size and
measures only 1.85 x 1.75 m. The size of Building 28 can not be determined. It seems
like the sizes of the buildings from this phase vary between 3.2 to 20.68 m2. It is
questionable whether a small area of three-squared meters could were used as a single
household. Building 27 was probably part of a building complex. The same suggestion is
also possible for the buildings in Grid L13, which share walls.
In the lower phase, Vb, the buildings have a different orientation and more importantly
they are free standing. Thus in terms of settlement organization, there is no continuity
between Vb and Va. Building 30 has a door opening on the southern narrow side and
two large post holes in its center which probably supported a gabled roof (Photo Plate 4).
The thin walls belonging to Buildings 30 and 33 imply that the upper structure must
were built of light material. Building 33 might have its orientation towards north but it is
not clear (Photo Plate 5). Building 31 was excavated in a restricted area on the
southeastern edge of the grid, therefore it is not possible to understand its orientation.
Building 30 was excavated completely and it covers an area of 19.35 m2. Building 33 is
partially excavated and has a size of 4.5 x 2.5 m. Building 31 is even smaller, measuring
2.2 x 1.5 m. It should however be noted that these measurements are indicating the
excavated areas and not the complete size of the buildings. Building 30 is therefore the
only building that gives a good idea about the building sizes from Vb.
2.2. Space between the structures
Based on the five structures that were exposed in L13, one can posit that they share
parting walls with each other. These walls create a sort of cluster without any space
between them. It is not known whether the entrance from these adjacent buildings was
provided through the roof. However, this option is unlikely because it would be very
unusual for Ulucak when compared to earlier and later building phases, where the houses
always have entrances on the floor levels. Cluster-like appearance in this building phase
is reminiscent to IVb. The excavators suggest that these five adjacent buildings formed
one single house (Çilingiroğlu and Abay 2005: 12). However, I am inclined to interpret
each of these structures as separate houses, since they all seem to possess their own
storage units as well as ovens and hearth areas. It is true that they share walls but this
might not automatically indicate that they belonged to one single household. On the
other hand, it is possible that the smaller buildings (24, 25, 26) were offspring houses,
63
built later than the main structure; although archaeological evidence supporting this
possibility has not been found.
Phase Vb has a completely different appearance. The structures do not create clusters.
They are free-standing buildings. For instance, between Building 30 and 33 there is an
existing open area whose width is around 1.20 m. Accordingly, Building 31, which was
identified by the excavator as a “workshop” due to the in situ finds it contained, is also
separated from the adjacent structures (Photo Plate 5.2). Hence, one can say that earlier
structures were not built adjacent to one another as one would have expected. This could
also be related to the roof constructions of these early structures. It is possible that they
had gabled roofs rather than flat roofs, as originally assumed. Two adjacent post-holes
that are found in Building 30 might indicate the presence of gabled roofs in this phase.
Unfortunately, there is no additional archaeological evidence that would support or
falsify this suggestion. For the time being it should be emphasized that Vb buildings
were rectilinear, free-standing post wall houses.
2.3. Evidence of communal activity areas It is also evident that an open area existed around Building 23, where concentrations of
animal remains, shells and obsidian/flint tools were discovered. As already mentioned
above, it remains uncertain whether these adjacent structures formed a single multi-
roomed complex as the excavators postulate (Çilingiroğlu and Abay 2005). It is however
highly likely that, whether they were occupied by a single household or several
independent households, the inhabitants made use of the open space next to Buildings 22
and 23; because in this open space concentrations of animal bones, horns, shells and
stone tools were unearthed. These concentrations might indicate that these areas were
used as activity areas for the manufacturing of bone tools and shell ornaments, animal
butchery and food preparation. The presence of an obsidian core from the same area
might be an indication of stone tool manufacturing that may have taken place here.
As for Phase Vb, there is no convincing evidence for communal activity areas like in Va.
However, as mentioned above, between the free-standing structures of Vb there are open
spaces, which might were utilized by the community members or at least by the
members of the families who inhabited these structures. It was noted by the excavators
that in this open area the floor was unplastered but very hard, suggestive of beaten earth.
This gives the impression that it was artificially made. Finds from this hard area
comprise mostly of pottery and animal bones.
64
There is one area in Vb where weaving activities probably took place. At the western
section of Building 33 a concentration of spindle whorls and a stamp (Excavation Unit:
EFO) were found. These finds are very much indicative of a weaving activity area.
However, since these were located inside the structure, it remains doubtful whether this
could have been a communal activity area.
2.4. Communal storage facilities
In terms of the communal storage, it is again difficult to find unambiguous evidence. As
mentioned already, there is good evidence of storage in this level. Almost every structure
contains storage bins, storage vessels and mud boxes. It is also known that not only
agricultural products but also certain objects were stored in this settlement. Sling
missiles are the objects which appear at almost every structure. Piles of sling missiles
were found in Buildings 22, 23, 27, and 28. It seems like they were kept in pottery
vessels or daub bins. Evidence for this is especially apparent at Building 23, where 214
sling missiles were found next to a vessel, which itself is fragmented but still contained
some slings. Another big concentration was discovered in Building 28, where 190 sling
missiles in total were found piled (Korfmann, Dedeoğlu and Erdalkıran 2007).
Storage facilities are also well-represented in Phase Vb. In Building 33, five storage bins
were identified in total. Their depths range between 45-50 cm and their diameters
measure between 60 and 95 cm (Çilingiroğlu and Dedeoğlu 2006: 139). If one considers
that part of the structure remains uncovered in the next trench, then it is possible that this
structure contained actually more than five bins. Building 30 which was exposed wholly
contained 11 storage units, 9 circular bins and two rectangular clay boxes. Diameters of
the circular bins measure between 30 to 70 cm. The rectilinear boxes measure 30 x 30
and 45 x 45 cm. It must be noted that none of the bins contain macro remains of grains.
Can this be interpreted as a planned abandonment, a planned re-organization of the
settlement or a fire that occurred at a time when there was little agricultural product left
in the storage facilities?
2.5. Presence of buildings or areas for ritual activities
There is not much to say in regards to the presence of special buildings in this level.
Although a number of figurines were found in and around these structures, they can not
be considered as convincing evidence of special buildings. Additionally, the quantity of
figurines (both human and animal) from Level V is much lower than the subsequent
level, indicating production of clay figurines was not fully embedded into the daily of
65
the community. Wall paintings, anthropomorphic vessels or bowls holding figurines are
not among the finds from Level V. Moreover, all of the buildings excavated from this
level have predominantly domestic characteristics. Although one can argue that only a
very restricted area of this settlement was exposed, it is doubtful that a building
constructed only for ritual/ceremonial purposes existed in this level. On the flipside,
ritual activities were performed within or outside the settlement, as is the case for the
following period.
H. The Neolithic Assemblage Most small objects from Ulucak IV-V have already been presented in several
publications. In this section I will try to concentrate mainly on the typical Neolithic finds
that are essential elements of the “Neolithic package.” These particular finds have
widespread distribution in Southwest Asia, Anatolia and Southeast Europe (for details
see Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2005). Occurrence of these elements at Ulucak is undeniable
evidence for West Anatolia’s involvement in the complex network of early farming
communities. These communities were apparently interacting in several ways, including
through long-distance exchange, mobility due to procurement of raw materials,
intermarriages, and possibly via existing itinerant craftsmen.
The objects which appear frequently at 7-6th Millennium BCE sites from Southwest
Asia, Anatolia and Southeast Europe are as follows: stamps (“stamp seals” or
“pintadera”), anthropomorphic figurines, prismatic polypod vessels (“offering tables”),
bone spatulas, animal figurines, well-made beads, marble/stone bracelets, imported
shells, well-made stone bowls, bone “belt hooks,” polished axes, grooved stones, bone
polishers, chipped discs, phalli, “ear plugs,” red slipped/painted wares and sling missiles.
These objects are very familiar to field specialists because they are discovered in varying
quantities and conditions at almost every Neolithic settlement, making it clear that they
belonged to varied and numerous spheres of Neolithic lifeways. In my opinion they do
form a meaningful whole together and thereby reflect a particular way of living that
developed in a particular space and time. This means that their co-occurrence is far from
being a coincidence. These objects are seen as expedient tools in our aim to reconstruct
Neolithic ways of life. In addition, since these objects do not appear suddenly and
simultaneously in a vast region but rather develop and evolve through time in various
regions, they can also be utilized in constructing relative chronologies and investigating
the dispersal of Neolithic communities and ideology (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2005).
66
Just like in many other Anatolian Neolithic sites, at Ulucak a good number of these items
were discovered in the archaeological contexts of Levels V and IV. Among the items
found were anthropomorphic figurines, animal figurines, stamps, bone spatulas, sling
missiles, prismatic polypod vessels (“offering tables”), “ear plugs,” polished axes, bone
polishers, anthropomorphic vessels, and well-made beads or pendants. One well-made
stone bowl was also discovered at Ulucak IV.
Below, a selection of some of these objects found at Ulucak, which are significant with
regards to establishing relative chronologies is presented.
The Lithic Assemblage: The analysis on lithic material from Ulucak, which is
conducted as PhD project by Kevin Cooney of Boston University continues to date. The
information provided here draws on the preliminary report submitted by Cooney in
2007.
Raw materials for lithics include flint, quartz, quartzite and obsidian. Preliminary results
of Cooney indicate that obsidian in Level V constituted 65% of the lithic assemblage
while this amount drops to 38% in Level IV. Lithic industry is basically based on blade
production. In Level V, 64% of all blades are made out of obsidian in sharp contrast to
47% in Level IV. Uni- and multi-directional pressure-flaked cores and prismatic cores
are known in the assemblage. Existence of prismatic cores at Ulucak is construed as an
indication of an unknown Mesolithic sub-stratum in Central-West Anatolia, as such
cores are typical of micro-blade production industries of Mesolithic cultures (Özdoğan
2007b: 409). Same production technique is also attested at Ege Gübre and Yeşilova,
indicating that blade production on prismatic cores is not peculiar to Ulucak in the
region. On the other hand, blade production relying on prismatic core production was
attested at Çatalhöyük VI-V and at Hacılar VI, indicating that the Neolithic communities
used this blade production technique and that it is not totally absent from Neolithic
Anatolia (Gatsov 2005; see also Gatsov 2009). Especially the sudden transition from
flake-based to blade-based technology has been recognized by Conolly (1999: 76) at
Çatalhöyük VI which is dated to ca. 6600/6500 cal. BCE, coinciding with sub-phases
VIa-Vf at Ulucak. Instead of a Mesolithic origin, blade-based technology at Ulucak
might have had its origins at Central Anatolia in the middle of the 7th millennium BCE in
the light of data from Çatalhöyük.
67
Stone tools are dominated by retouched flakes, blades, bladelets, end-, side- and
convergent-scrapers, sickle elements, sickle blades and boring/incising tools in both
levels. In contrast to Çatalhöyük, extremely few numbers of projectile points were
recovered at Ulucak IV-V.
Macroscopic inspection of the obsidian from the site revealed two major types: Gray-
matt and black-glossy. Different structures and color of obsidian may imply different
sources, although same obsidian may contain material that have different colors
(Özdoğan 1994). Gray-matt obsidian is usually associated with Melos obsidian while
black-shiny structure is a characteristic of Cappodocian obsidian. An analysis made on
obsidian found at the site showed that the source of the material was Central Anatolia
(Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004: 52). This is an undeniable evidence of an indirect connection
between Ulucak community and Central Anatolian communities, who extracted the raw
material from its source, probably processed it for further work and exchanged it with
people, who would then pass it to the next community until it reached as far as Central-
West Anatolia. It is possible that an exchange organization similar to PPN covering
Central Anatolia-Levant-Cyprus (Balkan-Atlı and Cauvin 2007) was active in at least
PN onwards between Central and Western Anatolia. So far, it is not known whether
Ulucak community acquired obsidian from Aegean sources like Melos or whether small
sized local sources exist in the vicinity of Ulucak (see Özdoğan 1994: 426 on small
obsidian sources in West Anatolia). Obsidian samples from Level IV-V are currently
analyzed by Ernst Pernicka at the Curt-Engelhorn-Centre for Archaeometry in
Mannheim whose results should clarify the source issue.
Anthropomorphic and animal figurines: In the excavation seasons between 1995-
2007, 66 figurines or fragments of figurines were discovered at Ulucak. Twelve of these
can not be identified in terms of type or gender. Few anthropomorphic figurines of
Neolithic type were found even at elevations close to the surface of the mound. Of all 66
figurines, 34 belong to anthropomorphic figurines, which predominantly represent
steatopygic females that are depicted sitting or standing. There is only one figurine
which could be identified positively as a male figurine. Anthropomorphic figurines were
discovered mainly in Level IVb and few fragments were unearthed from Va and Vb. It
appears that figurines do not appear at levels below Vb. Peg-head figurines seem to be
associated with Level V. One of the peg-head figurines was discovered in Building 30
right next to Bin 1.
68
On the other hand, 20 animal figurines were identified at all levels and seem to continue
into the earliest deposits at the site. It is in most cases impossible to identify the species
represented. In some cases, the excavators identified the animals as ox, bird or
sheep/goat/pig.
Stamps: Among the most widely distributed and distinctive Neolithic package items are
stamps, of which seven were discovered at Neolithic Ulucak (Fig. 3.11). Analogous to
figurines, stamps appear too at both levels; however, they occur more frequently at Vb-c.
One well-preserved circular stamp with concentric circles was uncovered in Building 13
from Phase IVb and one ellipsoid stamp with concentric ovals was discovered in
deposits belonging to IVg (Abay 2005; Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2009).
It is surprising that most of the stamps are found in deposits that are older than Level IV,
despite the fact that these deposits were excavated in a single grid, L13. In total five
stamps were found from Levels Vb and Vc. Three of the five are fragmented, four are
circular and one is quadrangular in shape. Two of them have concentric circles on them,
and one has concentric spirals. The quadrangular example is very well-preserved and has
a stepped labyrinth motif on it (item marked as 3 on Fig. 3.11). One of the circular
Figure 3.11: Stamps found at Ulucak. 1-2: Level IV; 3-7: Level V.
69
stamps is distinguished from all the other stamps in terms of its motif. The stamping
areas are divided into three. In each division there are circles with two concentric circles
(item marked as 4 on Fig. 3.11).
In terms of morphology and design Ulucak stamps are analogous to specimens from
Central and West Anatolia as well as to the ones that are known from EN sites in
mainland Greece and Macedonia (compare seals with spirals and concentric circles in
Lichter 2005: Fig. 3). However, the quadrangular example with labyrinth designs from
Phase Vb closely resembles Balkan stamps rather than Anatolian or Greek ones (see
Makkay 1984).
Sling shots: Ulucak’s Neolithic levels
contain large amounts of sling shots, which
are found singly in debris or as piles in
buildings.18 These objects are made out of
clay and have either biconical or ovoid
shapes (Fig. 3.12). Biconical type is
dominating the sling assemblage with 84%.
Only Level V contained more than 570
sling missiles (Korfmann, Dedeoğlu and
Erdalkıran 2007: 42). These numbers
clearly indicate that sling missiles were produced in large quantities at the site, were
stored in the buildings (frequently in jars or daub bins) and clearly constituted as the
main choice of weapon within the community. It should be noted that at Ulucak sling
missiles are present from the middle 7th millennium BCE onwards and continue to be
used until the abandonment of the settlement around 5700 cal. BCE. Projectile points are
extremely rare in the lithic assemblage. Korfmann (1973) underlines the fact that sling
shots are as effective as arrowheads as weapons in reminding us of the story of David
fighting against Goliath. Slings travel 75 m/sec in the air and clay specimens are
effective at distances between 20-60 m whereas they may reach distances as far as 200 m
(Ivanova 2008: 58-59). The Ulucak community was clearly well-trained in utilizing this
weapon effectively in potential conflicts or during hunting expeditions. Both Perlés
(2001) and Arsebük and Korfmann (1976: 136) mention that these objects might also
18 For details on sling shots from Ulucak, see Korfmann, Dedeoğlu and Erdalkıran 2007.
Figure 3.12: Ulucak sling typology. Left: the biconical type; Right: Ovoid type (after Korfmann et al. 2007: Res. 4a)
70
have been used by shepherds to protect their flocks from possible attacks from wild
animals.
Sling shots should certainly be mentioned among the other important items that are
encountered in the Neolithic assemblages. Biconical and ovoid clay sling missiles are
one of the most widespread elements of the Neolithic Package in Southwest Asia,
Anatolia and Southeast Europe (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2005). Özdoğan (2002) asserts that
these objects appear after the disappearance of stone arrowheads in Southwest Asia and
Anatolia. For instance, at Sabi Abyad sling missiles do not appear in basal deposits but
appear in the late stages of pre-Halaf horizon in Level 9 which is dated to 6200-6100 cal.
BCE (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: 38). In this light, they are seen as taking the position of
weapons or hunting devices until bronze arrowheads appear. Moreover, Özdoğan (2002)
maintains that sling shots can be correlated with the appearance of RSBW, therefore
making this object a chronologically distinctive item. The near absence of projectile
points at Ulucak IV-V is an interesting aspect that needs further scholarly attention.
Prismatic polypod vessels (so-called “offering tables” or “cult tables”): The typology
and vast distribution of these objects throughout Central and West Anatolia, as well as
Southeastern Europe, has already been studied by Schwarzberg. He demonstrates that the
quantity of these objects is especially high at sites from Northwest Anatolia – in other
words, at Fikirtepe Culture Sites (Schwarzberg 2005). Such vessels are also known in
Anatolia from Lake District sites like Hacılar, Kuruçay and Höyücek (Duru 1994, 1999;
Duru and Umurtak 2005), as well as from sites in the vicinity of İzmir like Moralı,
Çaltıdere and Höyücek II (Dinç 1997; Meriç 1993 respectively).
Ulucak polypod vessels represent the only examples from Central-West Anatolia that
were found in secured contexts. Of seven fragments from Ulucak which belong to such
vessels, three are very badly preserved (only one leg), whereas the rest are better
preserved but still fragmentary. The ones whose preservation is restricted to only one leg
are identified only tentatively as polypod vessels since there is a slight possibility that
they might belong to anthropomorphic figurines. The best preserved example was found
in a hearth area inside Building 13 from building Phase IVb. One fragment that was
uncovered in the debris of Va gives us clues about the continuation of these vessels into
the earlier phases. Below this occupation phase “offering tables” were not found.
71
Bone Spatulas: Variety of bone objects are present in Ulucak assemblage, which is
dominated by needles and points at all occupation levels. Bone spatulas are among the
typical objects associated with 7-6th millennia BCE communities of Southwest Asia and
Southeast Europe. The earliest examples of bone spatulas are reaching back to PPNA
period (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2005: 5). Basal Çatalhöyük and Bademağacı likewise contained
these objects (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2005: Tab. 2). At Ulucak, both levels yielded bone
spatulas of varying size and morphology. Some of the spatulas are elongated, flat and
thin objects with pierced holes on one narrow side (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004: Fig. 34).
Some, however, have round long handles and a wide shallow end and these resemble
modern kitchen spatulas the most. The precise function of these objects is unclear.
Russell points out that they might have been used for eating, plastering or preparing soft
substances (Russell 2005: 348). Best preserved spatulas originate from Level Va at
Ulucak where two specimens were found to the south of Building 22 lying parallel to
each other on the plastered floor (See Çilingiroğlu and Çilingiroğlu 2007: Fig. 26). A
fragmented bone spatula (only the shallow spoon-like part) was recovered in a fill
deposit below Level Ve indicating that these objects were produced already around the
mid 7th millennium BCE at the site.
I. Subsistence Current scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the vital steps for an agro-pastoral
life (domestication of plants and animals) were established independently in several
localities around the world; Southwest Asia being the earliest. Southwest Asian hunter-
gatherers domesticated major crops like wheat and barley and animals like dog, sheep,
goat, cattle, and pig. The current knowledge, constituted by multiple scientific
disciplines (archaeology, biology, genetics, history), also suggests that in Southwest Asia
domesticated plants and animals dispersed towards East and West (Zvelebil 2001: 1) by
means of human mobility and adaptation of farming by hunter-gatherers who came in
contact with the farmers (Zvelebil 2001: 5; Diamond 2002).
Wild progenitors of the “founder crops” (emmer, einkorn, barley, pea, lentil, chickpea,
bitter vetch, and flax) identified by Zohary and Hopf (1993) are not found in West
Anatolia as a package. It is argued that the sudden co-occurrence of the founder crops, in
their domesticated state, is an excellent indication of non-local domestication and
infiltration into the area by those who possessed these domesticated species (Colledge et
al. 2004).
72
At Ulucak the botanical and archaeological remains from the earliest habitation layers
and onwards indicate that the locale was inhabited by an advanced food-producing
community. Botanical samples from Level IVb were analyzed by Megaloudi (2005),
who distinguished two main cereal types produced at Ulucak. These are einkorn wheat
(Triticum monococcum) and six-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare), both of which could
be found in their wild forms in West Anatolia but were probably domesticated
somewhere around the Fertile Crescent. Zohary and Hopf point out that as one of the
founder crops einkorn has the advantages of being able to grow on poor soils and has
high nutritional values, although its yield is not as high as some other cereals (Zohary
and Hopf 1994). Another advantage of einkorn wheat is that it could be stored for a
longer period than, for example, bread wheat. Six-rowed barley, which appeared through
a mutation from the wild two-rowed barley during the domestication process, is another
founder crop that has the ability to resist “drier conditions, poorer soils and some
salinity” (Zohary and Hopf 1994: 55). Both einkorn wheat and six-rowed barley grow
around belts of oak forests and in secondary habitats, like maqius or abandoned fields.
These environments all exist today in the vicinity of the Ulucak mound.
High concentrations of wheat were discovered at Building 8 where traces of a fierce fire
were recorded. Megaloudi (2005: 29) underlines that the agricultural products were first
sieved to separate the grains from their by-products and were stored in the buildings,
ready to be consumed. This is an important hint in terms of the way in which agricultural
production was processed.
The analyses on the botanical remains of Ulucak V still continue. Aylan Erkal of Ankara
Middle East Technical University, who is analyzing the samples as part of her doctoral
dissertation, indicates that primarily wheat, barley and lentil were produced by this
community. She asserts that the inhabitants of Ulucak IV-V possessed great knowledge
of advanced farming strategies, which were highly-adapted to well-watered alluvial
plains.19 Future research will provide further insights into the environmental interactions
and subsistence strategies of the Ulucak community through time.
The types of agricultural practices employed by the Ulucak community are unknown but
it is possible that the readily available, fertile alluvial plains surrounding the settlement
could were utilized as cultivation fields. In this case, woodland clearance to gain
19 I would like to thank Aylan Erkal for providing her preliminary results to me.
73
cultivable land may not have been necessary. As mentioned above, the Ulucak
community may have practiced cultivation techniques like flood plain cultivation, this
requires low amounts of labor but wide spaces of land; and/or they may have practiced
intensive garden cultivation, which requires intensive labor and integration of animal
husbandry (Bogaard 2004; Halstead 1989). Based on the fact that sheep and goat
remains dominated the osteological assemblage with 75% at Neolithic Ulucak
(Trantalidou 2005) and because the flood area of the Nif Stream might not have covered
wide areas, Halstead’s suggestion that intensive garden cultivation was employed seems
plausible. This particular type of cultivation involves row-sowing, hand-weeding,
hoeing, manuring, and watering. According to this model, sheep and goat flocks that are
pastured on fallow fields for regeneration and manuring assure the long-term stability of
the settlements (Halstead 1989).
The estimates demonstrate that a household of five individuals consume around 1500 kg
cereals annually, which depending on the yield per hectare requires roughly 1-3.7 ha of
cultivated land. On the other hand, ethnographic records show that intensive cereal
cultivation can produce yields from 800 to 1900 kg/ha, depending on the weather
conditions (see Bogaard 2004: Table 2.1 and 2.2). These figures indicate that a family of
five individuals should be able to annually cultivate at least two hectares of land in order
to assure a survival that relies on crop cultivation. Since fluctuations in precipitation and
temperatures are well-known instances in the Mediterranean, a minimum agricultural
yield has serious consequences for the entire community. Such an event would
inevitably necessitate alternative ways of obtaining food, such as slaughtering domestic
animals, additional hunting/gathering/fishing or consuming forest products like acorns
(Halstead 1999; see also Braudel 1972: 246-265 for historically documented cases).
Indeed Kayan underlines the fact that frequent fluctuations in precipitation and
temperatures are one of the most important characteristics of the current climate around
Kemalpaşa Plain (Kayan 1999: 8). In line with this, Braudel (1972: 244) describes the
perpetual threat of bad agricultural yields in the 16th century Mediterranean with the
following words: “In the sixteenth century it was rare for a harvest to escape in turn all the dangers that threatened it. Yields were small, and in view of the limited space devoted to cereal growing, the Mediterranean was always on the verge of famine. A few changes in the temperature and a shortage of rainfall were enough to endanger human life. Everything was affected accordingly, even politics.”
In short, Ulucak’s optimal location bordering a fertile alluvial plain does not guarantee
an escape from short-term fluctuations in weather conditions for the community. In years
74
of bad yield the presence of forests must have vastly contributed to the survival of the
community. It is known that acorns are consumed by people in times of food shortage as
a substitute for cereals and therefore are known as “bread of hunger in Southwest Asia
(Zohary and Hopf 1994). Acorns (Quercus sp.) are already attested at Ulucak IV and
might have been consumed by the community in a similar situation (Megaloudi 2005:
30). It is common knowledge that acorns contain tannins that need to be removed before
they become palatable. Several ways are available to remove the poisonous substance
from the acorns: leaching, roasting or burying the acorns in a pit for several months
(Martinoli 2004: 74). It can be assumed that the Ulucak community possessed the
knowledge of making acorns edible for humans.
Nevertheless, we should note that Ulucak IV-V encompasses a period of circa 1000
years which is a clear indication of its lasting socio-economical stability and availability
of reliable food resources. Ulucak community took advantage of the highly fertile
alluvium plain surrounding their settlement for a millennium.
In terms of the osteological remains from Levels V and IV, it can be stated without
doubt that morphologically domesticated sheep, goat, cattle, and pig were found in the
assemblage. Additionally, animal husbandry was an important part of the diet. It was
dominated by ovicaprines, which constitute more than 75% of the whole assemblage,
whereas cattle comprise around 12% and pig only 4% (Trantalidou 2005). Similar results
were obtained by Çakırlar (2008), who has been studying the animal bones since 2007
from the Neolithic deposits. The information provided below draws on her first
preliminary report, which was based on the analysis of 5,173 bone and 222 mollusc
specimens. According to Çakırlar (2008), pigs were kept solely for their meat and they¸
together with cattle, played a secondary role in the subsistence. Sheep and goat dominate
the assemblage in the entire occupation from Layer Vc to IVb.
One of the objectives of Çakırlar’s ongoing research is to reveal whether secondary
products (especially dairy products) were consumed by members of the Ulucak
community and if yes, when this trend began. The production of dairy foodstuffs during
the Anatolian Neolithic, especially from cattle, was verified by a recent study which
aimed to detect raw milk lipids absorbed by ceramic containers (Evershed et al. 2008).
At Ulucak, the possible existence of dairy products needs to be further investigated with
more samples in order to discover the culling patterns. Çakırlar’s preliminary analysis of
kill-off patterns indicates that domestic animals were kept entirely for their meat during
75
Level V (pre-6000 cal. BCE), whereas in Level IV (6000-5700 cal. BCE) a mixed
exploitation strategy was adapted which targeted both meat and secondary products. This
reflects a major change in the attitude towards domestic animals and has profound
effects on the subsistence patterns of communities. This trend is especially visible in the
cattle kill-off patterns which show that more adult cattle are present in the assemblage.
Bird and tortoise remains are rarely found in the studied assemblage. Two fish bones
were found in the samples analyzed by Trantalidou (2005), however, their species
remains unknown due to bad preservation. The quasi-absence of bird and fish remains
might be a reflection of the excavation strategies that were utilized rather than the
exclusion of these species from the diet of the Ulucak community.
Both Trantaloudi and Çakırlar concluded that hunting played a minor role in the
subsistence at Ulucak. Çakırlar (2008) notes that in Level V hunting was particularly less
pronounced than in any other periods present in the mound, including the Early Bronze
Age levels. Current evidence indicates that Anatolian fallow deer (Dama dama) were the
most frequently hunted animals in both levels. In Level IV there is a marked increase in
the number of these deer. In terms of wild taxa, fallow deer is followed by roe deer
(Capreolus capreolus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), wild goat (Capra aegagrus) and red deer
(Cervus elaphus). European hare (Lepus europaeus), red fox (Vulpus vulpus) and brown
bear (Ursus arctos) are among the other identified wild species that only sporadically
appear.
Archaeomalacological studies were also conducted in order to understand the role of
molluscs in the subsistence patterns (Karali 2005; Çakırlar 2007). It is evident that
Ulucak was an inland site with at least a 15 km distance to the coast during the 6th
millennium BCE. This might be the explanation as to why aquatic sources did not play a
major role in this period, especially if we consider the low number of fish and mollusc
remains from Neolithic contexts as opposed to EBA levels. Nevertheless, at least 14
mollusc species were identified from Level IV. Lagoon cockle shells (Cerastoderma
glaucum) dominated the assemblage and were most probably collected and consumed by
the community. The presence of dentalium, or rustic dove shells (Columbella rustica), is
construed as ornaments rather than remnants of food. Relatively high numbers of
mollusc species, compared to the number of species identified in EBA levels for
instance, might indicate the community’s well-established knowledge concerning the
coastal environments and the habitats of these organisms. Although marine sources do
76
not constitute a critical portion of the subsistence, their existence can be used not only as
evidence of the community’s familiarity with mollusc collecting, keeping and
processing, but also of regular mobility of at least some of the members to the coast.
Consumption of marine shells continues into the first half of the 7th millennium BCE as
indicated by a shell midden found at sub-Layer Vf, which contained more than 500
mollusc shells.
77
Chapter IV
Analysis of Ulucak IV and V Pottery
A. Pottery Analysis Methods
1. Main bibliographical sources used in the study
In this study a number of books and articles were used as key sources of information on
pottery production, ethnographical case studies and the requirements of well-formulated
pottery analyses. These references include Shepard 1980; Rice 1987; Schneider 1989;
Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993; and Ökse 1999 and 2002. The design of the database
introduced below relies to a great extent on the suggestions made in these studies.
Shepard 1980 is a book which provides substantial ethnographic information on the raw
material procurement, manufacturing techniques of hand-made pottery, and
characteristics of prehistoric pottery. I found it especially enlightening in terms of the
discussions on the relation between the clay and color of the pottery.
Rice 1987 and Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993 were both useful in terms of the richness of
the information provided on the every aspect of pottery manufacturing, from the
properties of clay to the firing conditions. Substantial and well-written data is also
provided about the aims and methods of pottery analysis. It also provided some of the
form definitions for my study.
Schneider 1989 is a source which helps in terms of the methods of a pottery analysis.
Which properties and characteristics of the vessels should be given attention in a
78
coherent pottery analysis? How they should be categorized? These are the main
questions that are discussed in the article.
Ökse 1999; 2002 are the only books in Turkish that aim to provide the general
framework of the pottery analysis for the archaeologists. They are especially useful in
terms of the pottery terminology, definitions and pottery morphology.
2. Initial processing of the assemblage
During the excavation the pottery from the excavation units would initially be washed.
Secondly, the diagnostic pieces (i.e. complete vessels, rims, bases, handles, decorated
sherds) would receive unique illustration numbers, which were written on the inner side
of the sherds. From the start of the excavations, because of the lack of storage
possibilities, diagnostic sherds were separated from the body sherds. The latter were kept
in the excavation house while the diagnostic pieces were taken to be stored at the lab at
Ege University. I was only able to study the diagnostic pieces that were housed in the
archaeology laboratory in Ege University, İzmir.
The analysis of the Ulucak pottery followed the method known as “Selective Sampling.”
This is a method applied to obtain reliable data by analyzing representative amounts of
material from designated secure archaeological contexts (Rice 1987: 323). Therefore, the
first step in studying the pottery was a careful examination of the excavation
documentation, including daily reports, photos and plans. This was done to determine
where well-preserved contexts and deposits were, of which could contain the most
reliable and well-dateable material. A careful study of the excavation documentation
revealed the excavation units that needed to be included in the analysis. The material
selected was studied according to the building phases, starting with the youngest, which
were identified in the past excavation seasons by the excavators. Each and every
diagnostic sherd from the selected closed contexts was documented, measured and
described in terms of physical appearance, technological aspects and morphology.
In total, 2,981 diagnostic pieces from 383 excavation units were subjected to detailed
analysis (Tab. 4.1). Of these, 2,865 diagnostic pieces were included in the statistical
analysis and the rest were categorized as belonging to mixed or unstratified contexts.
The majority of the analyzed material stem from building phases IVb, Va and Vb. These
three building phases provided the best preserved domestic contexts and they have large
amounts of pottery associated with them. Other building phases (IVa, IVc, IVd-k) were
79
excavated in very restricted areas, which resulted in the recovery of only small quantites
of pottery from these layers. Especially building phases IVd to IVk were exposed in a
restricted area in Grid N11. Small sample size of pottery from building phases IVg and
IVi impedes reliable statistical conclusions. Selective sampling was especially applied to
ceramics from building phases IVa, IVb and IVc. Phases Va and Vb revealed smaller
amounts of pottery that were recovered from within only two grids and all the excavation
units from both of these buildings phases that proved to be secure were subject to
analysis.
Building Phases IVa IVb IVc IVd IVe IVf IVg IVh IVi IVk Va Vb
Number of analyzed diagnostics 342 657 215 131 167 142 89 201 52 140 387 342
Complete profiles 3 33 1 - - - - 2 - - 9 18
Table 4.1: Number of diagnostic sherds and complete profiles analyzed according to building phases.
In order to avoid the inclusion of contaminated pottery from these phases, in particular
from secure contexts, all house deposits were analyzed. These data were entered into a
Microsoft Access database designed by the author which enabled further quantitative
analysis.
3. Description of the fields in the databank
3.1. General information
Catalog ID: a unique number automatically provided by the databank for each entry.
Excavation Code: the code given to the sherds during the excavation which stem from a
common deposit. It refers to a single excavation unit. The codes are composed of three
uppercase letters (e.g. “CDG”).
Drawing Number: a unique number which is given to every single diagnostic sherd that
was drawn during the excavation. The code and the drawing number are also written on
the sherd (e.g. “BGR 3578”).
Notes: includes any additional information that needs to be given about the sherd. For
example, whether there is any trace of secondary use such as holes made after firing.
Current Location: describes whether the piece is currently located in the store room of
Ege University, at the excavation house or in the İzmir Archaeological Museum.
80
Figure Link: the file that contains the picture(s) of the piece.
Drawing Link: the file that contains the drawing(s) of the piece.
3.2. Contextual Information
This is a sub-form that provides information on the details of the recovery and context of
the vessels or diagnostic sherds. Some of the information is already available through the
databank of the Ulucak excavations and some of them are entered by the author.
“Trench Name,” “Layer,” “Date,” “Elevation Start,” “Elevation End,” “Size of the
Sherds,” “Number of Diagnostics,” “Find Location,” “Important Remarks,” and
“Associated Finds” can be found here. With the help of this information it is easier to
understand and evaluate the sherds and their recovery information. It also provides
important information on the relationship between the pottery finds and the structures,
architectural elements and other finds; this might help in identifying the function of a
building, an open area or function of a vessel.
3.3. Physical Properties
Information obtained: describes whether the diagnostic sherd is a “Rim Sherd,”
“Base,” “Handle or Lug,” “Body Sherd,” or a “Whole Profile.” There is also the “Other”
option, which is used to record rarely occurring elements such as lids, spouts or feet of
offering tables.
Size: knowing the approximate size of any given sherd is important because it provides
information on how well-preserved the piece (or whole context) is. It is also helpful to
know the size of a sherd when it is no longer available for observation. Size was
measured with the help of a sheet of paper on which different sized squares were drawn.
The squares measured 2 x 2, 3 x 3, 4 x 4, 5 x 5 cm and so on. By placing the sherd on a
square, one is able to see the approximate size in square centimeters. However, complete
vessels cannot be measured with this technique; in these cases this data field is left
empty.
Height: measured with calipers in centimeters by holding the sherd in its original
position. This field is particularly significant for the complete vessels of which their size
is best understood through recording height and rim diameter.
Wall Thickness: a significant criterion for understanding the quality of the vessels. Wall
thickness was measured with calipers in millimeters. There may be discrepancy between
81
the wall thicknesses of various areas of a single vessel. Generally, rim sherds are more
helpful when the goal is to determine the “fineness” of any given vessel.
Non-Plastic Inclusions: include every material type that is observed in the clay
composition. These could be part of the natural clay composition or they could also be
added later by the potter as real temper. Clays, whether from primary or secondary
deposits, include materials other than clay particles like other minerals such as quartz
and mica or organic components (Rice 1987: 37). At Ulucak IV-V the most frequently
appearing inclusions in the clay matrix are grits, chaff, sand, and mica. Lime appears far
less than the aforementioned components.
Shepard points out that clay deposits from streams and flood plains contain sand
(Shepard 1980: 11). Indeed in Ulucak Neolithic pottery sand and mica seem to be
appearing naturally in at least some of the clays used by the potters. It was made clear by
the clustering analysis of pottery sherds that at Ulucak IV various clay sources were
exploited, indicated by nine different chemical compositions (Liritzis 2005: 35). It is
possible that some of these sources were located on or near the Nif Stream, which might
well have contained sand, mica or even organic material. Since it is not possible to
distinguish between real “temper” (unless for instance, it is made up of pottery particles,
hair, blood, or shell) and material already available in the clay, these categories are not
addressed separately in this work.
It is also important to consider that different parts of the vessels might contain different
types of inclusions or that these inclusions may vary in size and quantity (Schneider
1989: 12). Therefore, this is another point which needs to be taken into consideration
when the data is evaluated.
Size of Inclusions: contains three categories, which are “Big,” “Medium” and “Small.”
In order to provide coherency, the chart in Orton et al. 1993: 238 was used. It is designed
to help ceramic specialists determine the size and amount of the non-plastic inclusions.
By using this chart one is able to compare the sherd with the images on the chart and
make more quick and reliable decisions concerning these inclusions. Small inclusions
are considered to be 0.5-1.0 mm, medium inclusions are between 1.0-2.0 mm and big
inclusions are larger than 2.0 mm (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993: 238).
Amount of Inclusions: again decided with the help of the chart on page 238 in Orton et
al. 1993. The result is then given as “Few,” “Middle/Regular” or “Abundant” as
suggested in Schneider 1989. “Few” inclusions represents a 5% presence of inclusions in
the clay. A regularly occurring value indicates around 10 to 20% of non-plastic particles
82
in the clay and abundant inclusions is the presence of more than 30% of inclusions in the
clay.
Fracture: one of the most important information sources that provides reliable clues
about the firing conditions. Fractures can have several compositions which allow us to
interpret the firing atmosphere. For instance, dark gray fractures indicate incomplete
oxidation, meaning either insufficient oxygen entering the atmosphere or short periods
and/or low temperatures of firing. Organic matter in the clay also causes dark colored
fractures. Light colored fractures are an indication of adequately oxidized firing
conditions (Rice 1987). Hence, this datafield is used to document the composition of the
fracture. The categories are “Single-Colored,” “Two- Layered,” “Three-Layered,”
“Multi-Colored,” and “Unidentifiable.” Both single-colored and three-layered fractures
occur frequently at Ulucak.
Fracture Color: another data field about the properties of core. If the composition is
three-layered, the colors are documented from top to bottom in the following format:
“orange-gray-orange.” Or if they are two-layered then they are listed in the following
format: “dark gray-brown.” For color categories, see the Surface Color description
included in this section.
Porosity: understood as defined in Schneider 1989 as “Wasseraufnahmefähigkeit.” In
actuality, most of the Ulucak pottery is non-porous, since it was as a rule carefully
slipped and/or burnished. However, some pieces did contain small pores on the surface
that were either uncovered by the burnishing or as a result of the burnt organic material
during the firing process. These were then labeled as “Fine-Porous.” Other possibilities
are “Coarse-Porous,” “Non-Porous” and “Unidentifiable”.
Hardness: one of the most problematic information categories during the entire pottery
analysis. At first, I had the intention to adopt the Mohs’ hardness scale. However, it
proved to be useless, at least for Ulucak Neolithic pottery, since practically every sherd
could be scratched by a steel blade and only a very small fraction of the sherds could be
scratched using a finger nail. This might indicate that most of the Ulucak Neolithic
pottery had hardness levels somewhere between “Moderate” to “Hard.” Another method
that seemed to work better was to break the sherds and try to experience the resistance at
the time of the breakage. It is known that hardness is influenced by many factors like the
nature of the firing, porosity, size of the non-plastic inclusions, and/or post-depositional
processes (Orton et. al 1993: 138). My criteria used herein for hardness is “Very Hard,”
“Hard,” “Moderate,” “Soft,” and “Unidentifiable.” The pieces that could be scratched
83
with a finger are classified as soft. The distinction between moderate and hard was
determined through the breaking method. Very hard pieces are usually the ones that were
exposed to extreme heat during or after their use-life.
Surface Color: exists as another disputed issue. Terms like “chocolate brown,” “buff,”
“jet black,” “crimson,” or “cherry-colored” are completely avoided as they are
susceptible to various interpretations. The color categories used in this study are “Red,”
“Dark Red,” “Reddish Brown,” “Orange,” ”Light Brown,” ”Brown,” “Dark Brown,”
“Cream,” “Gray,” “Black,” ”White,” and “Unidentifiable.” I have defined the surface
color by the most dominant color on the surface. For example, if the sherd shows two
colors (e.g. red and orange), I chose the color which covers more area on the sherd. I also
make an addition note that such pieces display more than one color.
It is generally assumed that Munsell soil color charts (1998) provide universally uniform
categories that enable researchers to have a uniform system of colors that can escape
relative perceptions of colors. I tried to create a similar, easy to understand surface color
system by using common color names, which should be more or less clear to everyone.
Nevertheless, the color categories that are used in the text are provided here with their
Munsell code below so that reader can compare my designations at any time with that
found in the Munsell Soil Charts.20
Red: 2.5YR4/8; 2.5YR4/6; 2.5YR5/8.
Light Brown: 10YR6/3; 10YR6/4.
Brown: 7.5YR4/4; 7.5YR5/4; 10YR5/2; 10YR5/3.
Dark Brown: 7.5YR3/1; 7.5YR3/2.
Dark Red: 2.5YR3/6; 2.5YR 2.5/3; 2.5YR 2.5/4.
Orange: 7.5YR 7/6; 7.5YR7/8.
Cream: 7.5YR8/4; 7.5YR8/1; 7.5YR8/3; 7.5YR8/2; 10YR8/3.
Light Orange: 7.5YR8/6; 10YR8/8.
Reddish Brown: 2.5YR4/4; 2.5YR4/6.
Gray: GLEY2 4/10B.
Dark Gray: 2.5Y2.5/1; Gley2 3/5PB.
Distribution of Color: as already mentioned, because many of the sherds bear more
than one color, I added this category to help the reader visualize the actual appearance of 20 These categories are also valid for the fracture colors (see Fracture Color section on the previous page).
84
the sherd. By classifying the surface color distribution as “Regular,” “Irregular” or
“Unidentifiable,” one can understand that even if the sherd is defined as red, this color
cannot be observed all over the surface.
Surface Remarks: a data field that provides additional information concerning the
sherds’ surfaces. For example, it is noted here as to whether or not the sherd is smooth,
mottled, uneven, crazed, cracked, or sooted. In the case of mottled pieces, all the colors
seen on the surface are recorded. Additionally, this section records whether or not there
are any fingerprints, mat traces, rubbing or burnishing traces visible on the sherd. The
surfaces of the sherds may have also been transformed by post-depositional processes,
such as when they come into contact with acid soils, salts, carbonates, and rootlets.
Indeed some analyzed examples had white encrustations on their surface indicating such
processes. All colors that are observed on the surface are also mentioned. In short, the
surface remarks section aids in obtaining information concerning the manufacturing
techniques, firing processes, function, post-depositional effects, and preservation of the
vessels.
Slipped: a “yes” or “no” question. The slip (or coat) is understood as “a suspension of
clay in water,” which is applied once or several times to the surface of the vessel with a
brush, naked hand or a piece of cloth by dipping or pouring (Shepard 1980: 67; Rice
1987: 150). The main reason for applying a slip to the surface is to give the vessel a
better appearance in terms of color and texture, and to obtain a desired color and a non-
porous surface (Shepard 1980: 191; Ökse 1999). Large vessels tend to be slipped with
the pouring method whereas smaller-sized vessels are dipped into the slip.
Schneider points out that a slip, which is made out of pigments to give a different color
to a vessel, should rather be called a “wash” (Schneider 1989: 13). Rice defines the
distinction between slip and wash quite differently by saying that the former is applied
before and the latter after the firing (Rice 1987: 151). Ökse underlines that the washes
usually are watery suspensions which allows one to see the original paste and the
inclusions through the wash layer (Ökse 1999: 29).
These contradictory definitions are one of the reasons why I did not include this category
into my analysis. Secondly, if Schneider’s definition is correct, it is not known precisely
whether the red or cream slips are pigments or simply clay suspensions. Chemical
analyses are needed in order to ascertain what kinds of coating materials are used at
Ulucak. Thirdly, as Ökse points out, washes form a transparent layer over the paste, thus
enabling the viewer to see the original paste. Since transparent surfaces are almost never
85
the case for the Ulucak IV-V pottery, it seemed to be inappropriate to adopt this term
once again.
Slip Coverage: defines which part of the sherd or vessel was covered with a slip. The
possibilities are “Wholly”, “Outside Wholly”, “Partly” and “Unidentifiable”. Almost all
of the sherds and vessels from Neolithic Ulucak are either wholly covered with a slip or
their outer surfaces are wholly covered.
Burnished: another “yes” or “no” question. Burnishing is understood as the process of
rubbing and smoothing the surface of a vessel when it is leather-hard with a hard tool
made out of wood, stone or bone in order to obtain a bright, even, compact, and non-
porous surface. If visible on the outer surface, the direction of the burnishing strokes is
also recorded, with the options being: “Horizontal,” “Vertical” or “Diagonal.”
Brightness: not every burnished sherd has the same brightness and therefore I have
created four categories for this data field. The brightness types are “Very Bright,”
“Bright,” “Non-Bright,” and “Unidentifiable.” The only problematic distinction is
between bright and very bright pottery sherds. I would define the very bright sherds as
ones which “reflect the light as from a mirror” due to their compact and even surfaces
(Shepard 1980: 122). Note that I do not use the category “metallic bright.”
Decoration Type: contains seven categories, which seek to encompass all the decoration
types that appear at Neolithic Ulucak (Fig. 4.1). These groups are “Impressed,”
“Incised,” “Painted,” “Plastic,” “Barbotine,” “Pattern Burnished,” and “Other.”
Decoration Description: the data field where the details of the decoration are described.
For example, if an impressed sherd needs to be further described, then shape, density and
Figure 4.1: Different types of impressions observed on Ulucak IV-V pottery.
86
orientation of the impressions would be detailed in this category. If the sherd is painted,
then the type and shape of the paint is described here. This field is important in terms of
understanding the variation in the decorations. It seeks to define whether they were
executed carefully or whether the decoration covers the whole surface, as well as what
kind of tool might have been used to execute the impressions and so forth.
Color of Paint: obviously used only for the painted sherds. The color is again defined in
line with the Munsell Soil Chart, as “Red,” “Brown,” “Cream,” et cetera.
Ware Type: the field where the ware group of the sherd is given. Ware groups at Ulucak
were defined using four main criteria: non-plastic inclusions, wall thickness, surface
color, and surface treatment.
The most frequently appearing ceramic category at Ulucak is called “Red-Slipped and
Burnished Ware” (RSBW). This category has two main sub-categories that include
“RSBW-org,” referring to chaff-tempered red-slipped wares, and “RSBW-min,”
referring to mineral-tempered red-slipped wares.
Red-slipped and burnished wares are already well-known in the archaeological literature.
French (1965; 1967) called this ware type “plain burnished ware” and Mellaart (1970)
included them in his “monochrome pottery” category. Recently, Özdoğan (2007: 414)
called them “red-slipped wares” and Lichter (2006: 34) named them “westanatolisch rot
polierten Keramik.” In this study, they will be referred to as RSBW.
Other ware categories used in this analysis are “Cream-Slipped and Burnished Ware,”
“Gray Ware,”, “Red-on-Cream Painted Ware,” “Cream-on-Red Painted Ware,” “Coarse
Ware,” “Brown Burnished Ware,” “Mica Glimmer Ware,” “Other,” and
“Unidentifiable.” Cream-slipped and burnished wares are also divided into two
categories according to their non-plastic inclusions as CSBW-min and CSBW-org
similar to RSBW. The wares and their defining criteria are described in detail in the
following section.
3.4. Definition of wares
Red-Slipped and Burnished Ware (RSBW): the most frequently appearing ware at
Ulucak IV-V, appearing from 40-80% in all building phases (Photo Plate 4.1). The
majority of pottery that is found in Levels V-IV belong to this group. The distinctive
characteristics of this ware are, as the name implies, the surface color and treatment. The
non-plastic inclusions in the pastes vary. Sand, mica, small grits, chaff, and other types
87
of inclusions such as lime appear in various combinations in the clay. Sand and mica
might be naturally occurring in the clay and chaff inclusions may reflect a separate
pottery production tradition. Therefore, it seemed to be appropriate to create two sub-
categories for this ware group. Sherds which contain chaff together with mineral
inclusions were named as “RSBW-org,” while material that contained solely mineral
temper was labeled as “RSBW-min,” In Level IV RSBW is typically tempered with
chaff (83%), whereas in Level V mineral inclusions, namely sand,mica,small grit, is
more commonly found (84%).
The pastes for this ware are compact to porous and found in tones of orange, brown or
gray.
The fractures are typically inoxidized or incompletely oxidized. Three-layered fractures,
as well as dark gray-dark brown colored fractures, are very common. RSBW-org is
especially associated with black layers and inoxidized pastes as the carbon in the clay
cannot escape completely during the firing process.
The vessels are always covered with a layer of slip, either made out of pigments or clay
suspension, which gives the surface a red color. The layer of slip cannot always be
distinguished clearly, as it can be thin and always adheres well to the body. However,
surface color at the end of the firing process did not always turn out to be red. Surface
colors range from orange, light brown, brown, to dark red. Usually it is the case that
surface color is composed of various tones due to the firing conditions (oxidation,
duration of the firing and heat). Different hues, or grayish-blackish areas caused by
sooting or burning, are seen frequently. In some cases, the outer and inner parts of the
vessel show different colors (e.g. the outside is red and the inside is gray or vice versa).
This is probably due to the limited control of the firing conditions. Therefore, we see
different chromas and tones of red, brown and orange in Ulucak pottery.
Another important characteristic of the RSBW vessels are their bright surfaces achieved
through careful burnishing. It is known that many unrestricted vessels are burnished both
on the outside and inside. Sometimes one can observe rubbing traces on the vessel’s
surface, which were left by the tool used during the burnishing process. Some examples
are so bright that they reflect the light as if from a mirror.
RSBW usually display a fine character with a wall thickness that generally ranges
between 3-6 mm. However, one can distinguish between two sub-variants in terms of
quality, which are called “fine” and “coarser” variants. Coarser variants appear
frequently and although they are red-colored, slipped and burnished like the fine RSBW,
88
the walls are thicker and the size and/or amount of the inclusions may be bigger.
Moreover, the surface treatment is not executed as finely as with the finer variant.
There are no specific vessel shapes that are exclusively associated with RSBW.
Practically every vessel type found at Ulucak V-IV was executed in this ware.
Decoration is seen seldom on the RSBW vessels. There are few examples with
impressions and plastic decoration. The painted ones are evaluated under other ware
names, like “cream-on-red ware.”
Cream-Slipped and Burnished Ware (CSBW): a ware type that occurs in relatively
low numbers in Levels IV-V (Photo Plate 4.2). Their number increase in early IV and
Level Va. They have a finer appearance than RSBW with very bright surfaces and thick
coating. The non-plastic inclusions are chaff, sand and mica, sometimes with grits.
“CSBW-org” and “CSBW-min” are sub-categories for this group. The size of the
inclusions are small to medium. Fractures are oxidized with orange-light brown colors,
although incompletely oxidized fractures also exist. The most important difference
between CSBW and RSBW is that CSBW’s distinctive surface color is white-cream,
light brown or light orange. Otherwise, their manufacturing process seems to be identical
to RSBW.
Just like RSBW, they have a fine appearance with bright surfaces and very thin walls (3-
5 mm). The cream-slip might again be a pigment rather than a clay suspension. Finally,
another characteristic of CSBW is their thick whitish slips which are occasionally
cracked.
Brown Burnished Ware (BBW): especially encountered in large numbers in Level V.
They generally have dark-colored inoxidized cores, small-middle mineral inclusions,
moderate firing, and dark colored, burnished, non-porous and non-bright to bright
surfaces (Photo Plates 5.2 and 6.1). Surface colors range mainly from brown to dark
brown with regular or irregular distribution. The slip or any coating present cannot be
distinguished. If they are slipped, they must were slipped by the same clay as was used
for the body. Wall thickness is around 3.5-4 mm. Despite their thin walls, their
appearance is coarser than RSBW and CSBW. BBW can be described as fine-medium
dark-colored burnished pottery with mineral non-plastic inclusions. They are especially
associated with hole-mouth jars, appearing in the early levels of the site.
Gray Ware: in most cases associated with impressed body sherds; and their combined
number is low. Most impressed vessels did not survive wholly intact but rather as single
body or rim-sherds. This might indicate their less durable nature due to the firing
89
conditions or manufacturing techniques. Their paste, color and surface treatments are
obviously different from the other slipped and burnished wares (Photo Plate 5.1). They
have a coarser appearance with rough and non-bright unburnished surfaces. The slip
cannot be distinguished and if any coating exists it is the same as the clay (e.g. what can
be called “self-slip”). Some of them show glimmering micaceous surfaces and many are
not well-preserved. The Gray Ware paste includes non-plastic inclusions like chaff, sand,
grit, and mica. The fractures are usually dark gray or brown. Surface colors may vary
from light gray, to gray, to brown. Despite Gray Ware’s coarse looking surfaces, in most
cases their wall thickness does not exceed 4 mm. Gray Wares can be classified as one of
the coarse fabrics at Ulucak IV-V but whether they were associated with cooking cannot
be inferred. They are typically associated with impressed pottery and do not appear
below Level Va.
Coarse Ware: as the name implies, used for sherds or vessels with a coarser appearance
that is achieved through thicker walls, large-sized grit inclusions and the absence of
careful surface treatment (Photo Plate 8.1). Coarse Ware can be burnished, although they
mostly have non-bright surfaces. There are porous as well as non-porous examples.
Fractures are mainly gray or dark brown and occasionaly orange. The firing ranges are
between moderate to hard. Cream Ware surface colors vary from cream to gray and dark
brown. Their wall thickness is usually between 5-6 mm. The amount of Cream Ware is
extremely low in the entire assemblage.
Red-on-Cream Ware: a very well known pottery type of West Anatolian Early
Chalcolithic assemblages, although they occur very rarely in Central-West Anatolia.
These are very fine wares with very thin and brittle walls (Photo Plate 7.1). As the name
implies, its most characteristic property is the red paint applied on a cream-slipped and
burnished surface. In this sense, it is actually a variety of cream-slipped and burnished
ware because the other properties are just the same as cream-slipped and burnished ware.
The paint that is used to decorate the vessel is probably the same as the slip used for the
RSBW. This ware occurs only rarely in Ulucak IV-V.
Cream-on-Red Ware: the cream painted version of the RSBW (Photo Plate 7.2). Just
like red-on-cream ware it does not occur frequently in the assemblage. The paint is
probably the same material as the slip used for cream-slipped and burnished wares. Paint
is probably applied to the red burnished surface before firing. There is one example
where cream paint was not burnished but left as it was applied.
90
Mica Glimmer Ware: appears with building Level Vb and seems to be peculiar to the
earlier building phases of Ulucak. Their amount is very low in the overall ceramic
assemblage, yet they are easily distinguished from other wares by their surfaces (Photo
Plate 6.2). The surface glimmers due to the intensive numbers of tiny mica particles in
the clay. This is different than the mica gloss observed on various other wares. Mica
glimmer can also be referred to as “mica wash” and seems to be an intentional act of the
potters. The fabric is similar to brown burnished ware with mineral inclusions, moderate
firing and single layered, dark colored cores. Surface color ranges from dark red, light
brown to dark brown. Burnishing is common.
Unidentifiable: a data field for the pieces which have extremely worn-out surfaces or
are covered with a thick layer of minerals which prevent us from determining the ware.
Many vessels from the heavily burnt settlements at IVb belong to this category.
3.5. Morphological information
Rim Type: seven main rim types occur in Ulucak Neolithic pottery; these are “Simple,”
“Incurving” “Everted,” “Sharply Everted,” “Flattened,” and “Bead-Rim” (Fig. 4.2; see
the appendix for summary of rim morphology). A rim is identified as simple when the
lip is left rounded and straight. Incurving rims are, as the name implies, rims that are
turned inside. Everted rims have a lip that is turned slightly outwards. A sharply everted
rim would have a more defined curve towards the outside. Flattened rims are very
characteristic of Ulucak Neolithic pottery. They display a deliberately flattened and
thickened area along the rim which is achieved by pressing a stone, thumb or any other
instrument on the rim. Their rim width can range between 3-30 mm. A bead-rim is when
the rim is thickened on the outside forming a groove all around the vessel’s mouth.
Figure 4.2: Rim types at Ulucak IV-V.
91
Rim Diameter: one of the most important pieces of information that expresses how big
the vessel was originally. In order to measure the rim, a chart with concentric circles
(with a 0.5 cm increasing radius) was used to measure the diameter quickly and reliably.
There is no need to mention that the bigger the sherd is, the less the risk of
mismeasurement is.
Diameter Remarks: a data field where the number of concentric circles the rim-sherd
covers on the diameter chart is noted. This field enables me to know how much of the
original rim was preserved and how reliable the data are concerning the rim diameter and
vessel shape.
Base Type: has seven different categories, which are: “Flat,” “Disc,” “Ringed,” “Other,”
and “Unidentifiable.” Most of the bases that occur at Ulucak IV-V are either flat or disc
bases (see the appendix for summary of base morphology).
Base Diameter: another important data field used to find out about the stability and size
of the vessel. This measurement has also been made with the help of the rim chart, which
as mentioned was also employed for the rim diameter. One problem with measuring the
base diameters appeared when the base was oval in shape; in this case, it did not fit the
circles of the diameter chart. Therefore, such oval-based pieces were measured with help
from calipers or then when they were not well- preserved enough, their diameters could
not be measured.
Base Remarks: data field that provides information on the size and preservation
conditions of the base, as well as the type of manufacture. Additionally, it contains
information on the shape of the base (e.g. whether it is oval) and if there are any mat
traces on the base would also be mentioned here.
Handle Type: there are two basic categories of handles associated with Neolithic
pottery, “Loop” and “Basket” handles. I have used the definitions for these two types as
given in Ökse 1999: 94-96. Loop handles are handles that usually are horizontally
attached to the body vessel. Basket handles are attached to the rim, stretching from one
side to the other. The analysis revealed that basket handles are absent at Ulucak IV-V
and handles altogether are extremely rare.
Lug Type: include “Vertical Tubular,” “Knob,” “Double-Knob,” “Pierced Knob,”
“Other,” and “Unidentifiable.” Since tubular lugs always occur vertically, they are
labeled as “Vertical Tubular.” Knobs appear to resemble “buttons,” with a small amount
of clay simply attached to the surface. Theoretically, lugs are used to hang the vessels
92
with ropes or to cover their lids, whereas knobs are useful to by which to grab vessels
(see the appendix for summary of lug morphology).
Number of Lugs: total number of lugs appearing on a vessel.
Orientation of the Handle/Lug: four alternative lug-types are “Horizontal,” “Vertical,”
“Other,” and “Unidentifiable.” This information is needed in order to reconstruct the
original form of the handle or lug. This might also provide information on the function
of the vessel. “Other” represents lugs or handles that are attached diagonally to the body,
a feature that does occur on Ulucak vessels.
Width: of the lugs, handles or flattened rims. This is recorded in millimeters.
Length: of the lugs, especially of vertical tubular lugs. Since they occur in various
lengths, it is important to record the variety of lug sizes. This measurement may shed
light on the function and execution of the vessels. This data is recorded in millimeters.
3.6. Definitions of vessel shapes
Ökse 2002 and Rice 1987 are the main sources that I have found useful in defining
vessel shapes appearing at Neolithic Ulucak. One of the methods of identifying vessel
shapes suggested by these authors rests on the principle of measuring the ratio of height
to maximum diameter of a vessel, which helps to determine the vessel type (Rice 1987:
217; Ökse 2002: 100). In most cases these methods proved to be of general use,
although, one has to mention that they are both time-consuming and fail to apply to
prehistoric pottery which is void of standardization. Rice rightly underlines the fact that
universally defining vessel shapes is probably too ambitious a project and not without its
flaws (Rice 1987: 217). It is clear that almost every ceramic analyst has his/her own
criteria when it comes to defining shapes and forms. Therefore, I found it useful to
provide the reader with the definitions below of the terminology used in this particular
study and to mention the criteria that diverge from the strict definitions provided by
Ökse and Rice.
Restricted Orifice: when the orifice diameter is smaller than the maximum diameter of
the body.
Unrestricted Orifice: when the mouth diameter is equal to or larger than the maximum
diameter of the body.
Dishes: are always unrestricted. A dish is a container whose height is more than 1/5 but
less than 1/3 of its maximum diameter.
93
Beakers: are small sized containers whose diameter is smaller than its height and whose
rim diameter does not exceed 15 cm. They normally have no handles.
Bowls: can have restricted and unrestricted orifices. One of the definitions for bowls is a
container whose height can measure from 1/3 to equal the amount of its maximum
diameter (Rice 1987: 216).
Bowls have similar sizes to dishes but are deeper than them. At Ulucak, their rim
diameters mostly range from 9-20 cm with depths mainly from 5-8 cm. Bowls have sub-
categories that are defined according to their profiles; such bowls are “Bowls with ‘s’-
Shaped Profiles,” “Bowls with Straight Profiles” and “Bowls with Convex Profiles” (see
the appendix for summary of bowl morphology). Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles can
have defined or slight ‘s’-shaped profiles. Bowls with convex profiles can have vertical
or flaring upper bodies, depending on the angle of the rim and where the belly was
situated. Usually if the bowl has a lower belly the upper body would be vertical. If there
is no defined belly, then the angle would be less than 90-100°. Finally, there is the well-
known “hole-mouth bowl” which has a restricted orifice and a globular body whose
width exceeds the rim diameter. One true example of such a bowl is found in Vb
deposits.
Large Bowls: or Schüssel or Çanak bowls, have shapes similar to that of bowls but they
have larger volumes. Large bowls are frequently found in the Ulucak assemblage. They
normally have rim diameters from 21-35 cm or depths that exceed 10 cm. There is no
clear-cut distinction between bowls and large bowls at Ulucak and the definition of the
large bowls is inevitably arbitrary, relying mainly on the rim diameter of the vessel.
When the depth of a vessel cannot be measured, the rim diameter was used as the
defining criterion. Large bowls can have convex and ‘s’-shaped profiles. Oval variants of
large bowls with ’s’-shaped profiles are also found in the IVb assemblage (see the
appendix for summary of large bowl morphology).
Jars: always have restricted orifices, usually with rim diameters that are half the size of
their maximum body diameters. Jars are also defined as containers whose height can be
equal to or greater than their maximum diameters. Jars may occur in various sizes with
or without necks. At Ulucak, there are both variations. Jars without necks are very
common, having mainly globular bodies and can appear with‘s’-shaped or convex
profiles (see the appendix for summary of jar morphology).
“Jars with Necks” also appear with globular bodies, having sub-varieties that are
classified according to the shape of their necks. These are “Jars with Vertical Necks,”
94
“Jars with Everted Necks” and “Jars with Short Necks.” Short-necked jars have necks
that are shorter than 3 cm and can have‘s’-shaped profiles.
Jug: basically a jar with a spout whose primary purpose is pouring liquids. Very few
examples are known from Ulucak. There is one complete jug found in Building 30 (Pl.
38.1).
Miniature Vessel: is a vessel that can be identified as a small cup with a height lower or
equal to 5 cm. They can occur in the form of bowls or jars.
Anthropomorphic Vessels: are jar-like containers that have a human form. Two
examples are known from Ulucak IVb (Pl. 15.1 and 15.2; see also the appendix for
miscelleanous forms).
Offering Tables: are shallow vessels that are usually rectilinear or square in shape, with
four short legs (see the appendix for miscelleanous forms). In literature they are
commonly referred to as offering tables although their functions remain unknown to
date. They are also called “prismatic polypod vessels” (see Schwarzberg 2005).
Sieves: are containers whose walls are completely or partially pierced (see the appendix
for miscelleanous forms).
Special forms: include any other rare form that is not represented in the other vessel
categories such as “braziers” or “lids” (see the appendix for miscelleanous forms).
Unidentifiable: are the diagnostic sherds of which their bad preservation or small sizes
do not enable us to identify their original form.
4. Illustration
Illustration of Ulucak pottery was in progress since the beginning of the excavations at
the site. Diagnostic sherds (i.e. rims, bases, handles, lugs, and decorated pieces) from
each collection unit are given a unique number and drawn by the team members during
the excavation season and then are consequently catalogued for the excavation
documentation. Many of the illustrations used in this study stem from these drawings. I
also received valuable help from archaeologist Canan Karataş, a member of the Ulucak
team, who made ink drawings of some complete vessels and decorated sherds.
I have digitized and drawn many profile illustrations in the catalogue using FreeHand
and Adobe Photoshop softwares. The pieces illustrated herein are generally presented at
a 1:2 or 1:3 scale.
95
B. Layer IVa
1. Description of the phase
Layer IVa constitutes the latest phase of the Neolithic settlement. Since it was directly
under the Early Bronze Age deposits or in some cases very close to the surface, where
agricultural activities took place, it was damaged considerably. Therefore, the excavators
were not able to reveal whole structures belonging to this building phase. It appears to be
represented by few architectural features. Additionally, it contains mostly yellowish or
light brown compacted soil that occasionally was interspersed with burnt mud-brick
pieces. Archaeological remains were uncovered in several areas including O11, O12,
N11, N12, and M13. At trench N11 an oven and a hearth belonging to IVa were
excavated. Data from M13, where the youngest phase of the North Street and Courtyard
20 were recovered, was included in the analysis. Finally, material uncovered from grid
O11 is also present in our analyses.
Some of the IVa features contained post-Neolithic pottery, mainly Chalcolithic and Early
Bronze Age, and rarely post-Bronze Age material. The Neolithic material is usually
well-preserved but there are some exceptions where the surface is covered with minerals
or salt particles that prevents surface visibility.
In total 342 diagnostic pottery sherds that stemmed from good contexts were analyzed
from the top layer of the Ulucak IV. These constitute 159 rim sherds, 133 base
fragments, 32 handles or lugs, 15 body sherds with decorations, and three complete
profiles.21
2. Fabric
Pottery from IVa is dominated by RSBW (Fig. 4.3) at 87% (n=305) of the assemblage,
with coarser RSBW appearing only occasionally. RSBW-org constitutes 71% whereas
RSBW-min only 29% of the RSBW. CSBW (n=20), gray ware (n=11) and coarse ware
(n=9) each make up roughly 3% of the collection. There is no painted ware in the
analyzed samples and there are nine unidentified sherds.
21Analyzed excavation units from this layer are: AVA,AYG,AYU,AZF,AZG,AZH,AZI,AZJ,BAA,BAB,BAN,BAR,BBH,BBJ,BBR,BCEH,BCEI,BDB, CAD,CBI,CCG,CCI,CDG,CDI,CDJ,CER,CFI,CGD, and CJZ.
96
Non-plastic inclusions that appear in the pastes show certain homogeneity. Sand and
mica occur in almost every paste, frequently along with organic material (n=132).
Although less regular, small grits are present as well. Size of the inclusions range
between small to middle but are dominated by small-sized inclusions (n=223). Only ten
RSBW sherds contained large inclusions. The amounts of inclusions do not have a
homogeneous character. Although all categories, from few to abundant inclusions, are
observed, regularly occurring (n=211) and abundant (n=106) amounts are frequent.
Bases tend to have regular to abundant amounts of inclusions, whereas rims normally
have few to regularly occurring amounts. This might suggest that different clay
compositions were used for different parts of the vessels. CSBW have in most cases
small-sized but abundant amounts of inclusions composed of mica, sand and organic
material. Most of the gray wares have organic and small grit as inclusions. This might
indicate a functional preference in terms of gray wares.
Gray wares contain inclusions that are small to medium-sized and appear regularly to
abundantly.
Most of the sherds have single-colored fractures (n=285), which are dominated by gray-
dark gray, brown-dark brown and orange cores. Completely black cores occur on ten
examples. Together with 106 dark gray cores, black fractures indicate firing atmospheres
that were not fully oxidized and the presence of abundant organic material in the paste.
There are also 28 pieces that have fractures composed of three layers and 11 that have
two-layered fractures. These sherds usually display brown-gray-brown or orange-dark
Figure 4.3: Sample pottery (RSBW) from Layer IVa.
97
gray-orange layer combinations. Such layer combinations are most likely caused by the
organic material in the paste; this material could not escape during the firing due to
incomplete oxidation and therefore formed a dark-colored layer in the middle (Rice
1987: 334).
Hardness ranges mainly between soft (n=64) to moderate (n=245), with hard examples
appearing only in 18 cases. Although fine-porous sherds occur frequently (92 out of 342)
in the assemblage, due to pores left on the surface by the organic inclusions, the majority
(n=234) of the pieces bear non-porous surfaces from slipping and fine burnishing.
Coarse porous surfaces appear in only five cases and there are 11 pieces with invisible
surfaces, which are left as unidentifiable.
Slip and burnish appear practically on every well-preserved piece, both covering the
complete outer surfaces. Unrestricted vessels were slipped and burnished on the inside as
well. It is observed that a good number of surfaces were bright due to the careful
burnishing (n=232), although non-bright examples are not uncommon either (n=77).
Only occasionally were there very bright pieces (n=26). Additionally, vertical (often)
and horizontal (rarely) marks, which occurred during the burnishing process, can be
observed on a number of sherds. Mottled, sooted and worn-out surfaces appear
occasionally. Surfaces with mica glimmer are observed rarely (n=6).
There are many variations of surface colors present. Hues of orange (n=94), red (n=126)
and brown (n=69) are the most frequently seen – in some cases appearing together on a
single sherd. Gray, light brown, cream, and dark red surfaces are also seen. Irregular
distribution of color over the surface is a rule rather than an exception. Additionally, it is
not uncommon that outer and inner surfaces bear different colors, which might again
point to irregular conditions of the firing atmosphere.
Coarse and gray wares are represented with only a small number of examples. Their
pastes show no characteristics which vary from those seen in the RSBW; meaning sandy
and organic inclusions are seen together with mica and small grits also present. Sizes of
the non-plastic inclusions vary between medium to large, with the amount of inclusions
being abundant. All examples of gray ware (n=11) have single-colored fractures that are
gray or brown. Their hardness ranges between soft to moderate with surfaces that are
non-porous in composition. Although they are slipped (probably self-slip) and
sometimes rubbed, their surfaces remain non-bright. The surface color is either gray or
98
brown. Interestingly, five gray ware examples bear impressed decorations, this brings to
mind that gray ware is related to vessels with impressed decorations. CSBW are non-
porous and tempered with small-sized inclusions which normally are sand, mica and
organic material. Additionally, they are both moderately fired with bright-very bright
surfaces that are mainly cream or light brown in color.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
The mean size of the sherds is 23.6 cm2. The smallest sherd measured 4 cm2 whereas the
biggest approximately 100 cm2. The majority of the analyzed examples are 11-20 cm2 in
size, although there are 121 sherds that are bigger than 25 cm2. Fifty-four pieces are not
preserved at heights exceeding 2 cm. The mean preserved height of the sherds is 3.7 cm
with a maximum value of 12 cm and a minimum value of 0.9 cm.
3.2. Wall Thickness
The average wall thickness in this layer is 5.5 mm. The thinnest wall is only 2 mm
whereas the thickest is 17 mm. The average thickness of the rims is 5 mm, with 2 mm
the lowest and 15 mm the highest in value. In general, the walls of the sherds can be
classified as thin. One hundred and eighteen rim sherds have a wall thickness that
measures between 2-4 mm –giving a fine ware appearance to the pottery. The remaining
sherds have thicknesses that range between 5-7 mm.
In observing specific ware types, the wall thickness of gray ware ranges from 5 to 15
mm with an average of 7.3 mm. The coarse wares here have values between 4-11 mm
with an average of 6 mm for their wall thickness.
In contrast to the rims, the average thickness of bases is 6.25 mm, which indicates the
robust structure of the bases. This robustness provided stability to the vessel.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Jars with everted necks and jars without necks dominate the assemblage (Pl. 1-3). The
most frequently appearing jars are as follows: jars with vertical necks (6%), jars with
everted necks (34%), jars without necks (37%), and jars with short necks (12%). Jars
seem to be associated with flattened rims whereas bowls have either everted or simple
rims. One of the RSBW jars has nail impressions on the shoulder (Pl. 1.1). Only one jar
without a neck carries a pierced knob. Other notable vessel types that occur in this phase
99
are bowls with convex and ’s’-shaped profiles (Pl. 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).
Together, these two bowl types are represented by a total of 20 examples. Bowls with
straight profiles appear in much smaller quantities (n=2). Four large bowls with “’s’-
shaped profiles and three fragments of large bowls with convex profiles complete the
assemblage. There is also one rim sherd belonging to a dish and two miniature vessels
(Pl. 2.9, 2.10) from this layer.
3.4. Rims
There are three major types of rims that occur in the assemblage, these are simple (49%),
everted (33%) and flattened rims (15%). Incurving, inner-thickened and sharply everted
rim forms are represented with very few examples. One inner-thickened rim sherd might
even have been an intrusive piece from Chalcolithic layers. Flattened rims have highly
varying thicknesses which range from 3 to 30 mm, appearing usually within the range of
3-7 mm. Such rims mainly appear on jar rims, while thicker flattened rims usually
belong to jars without necks.
The average rim diameter is 15.4 cm with 6 cm being the smallest and 30 cm representing
the largest values. Values over 20 cm are rare.
3.5. Bases
Flat bases dominate the assemblage with 107 examples from a total of 136 examples (Pl.
4). There are 27 disc bases and only one ring base among the analyzed examples. There
are 16 cases where the base is not circular but oval (Pl. 4.2). Oval shaped bases can be
either flat or disc shaped. Base diameters range between 4 and 20 cm with an average of
9.8 cm. Most of the bases have a diameter between 9 and 12 cm. Values over 14 cm are
extremely rare.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
Among the most common addition to the body of the vessel are various types of lugs.
These lugs are dominated by vertically placed tubular lugs and knobs. Thirteen out of 33
lugs belong to vertically placed tubular lugs and appear in varying lengths and widths
(Pl. 5.8). Their lengths may fluctuate between 20 to 55 mm.
Twelve single, four double and two pierced knobs constitute the second largest group
(Pl. 5.1-5.7). Lugs were simply attached to the vessel body and then either pierced or left
unmodified. This was probably done before the vessel was slipped and burnished. All
100
the lugs are burnished but the areas where the body and lug are attached to one another
were not carefully burnished.
In this assemblage, handles are a rare feature represented with only five loop handles,
which are small in size and either horizontally or vertically attached to the vessels.
3.7. Decoration
Decoration is another feature that does not occur frequently in this phase. Fifteen out of
342 sherds have decoration. Additionally, there is one red-slipped sherd that has three
vertical lines that were made through burnishing. However, it is not clear if this was
intended to be a pattern burnish decoration. Fourteen sherds were impressed and one has
plastic decoration with an unclear motif.
Impressions appear to have been made at a
stage in the vessel production when the
pottery was still moist or leather-hard. The
impressions were made with either a sharp
thin instrument or then by using their
fingernails (Pl. 5.10-5.17). Nail-like
impressions appear with the greatest
frequency, with tear-drops and half circle
impressions also present (Fig. 4.4). All
impressions always cover the entire surface of the sherds but whether they covered the
entire surface of the vessels is unknown because no whole vessels with impressed
decorations survived from this building phase.
Nine of the impressed sherds have red slip and burnish and five of them belong to the
gray ware category. Five of the red-slipped and impressed pieces have non-bright
surfaces, as do all of the impressed gray wares.
Figure 4.4: Impressions on Gray Wares (IVa)
101
C. Layer IVb
1. Description of the phase
Level IVb constitutes a vast area,
which revealed cultural remains
from ten different excavation
areas.22 The areas that were closer
to the center of the mound were
better preserved than those
towards the edge of the mound.
The areas at the outer extremities
of the mound had their artifactual
remains situated much closer to
the surface and were in many
areas cut by Bronze Age and
Roman buildings (such as at
excavation areas L13 and K13).
In certain areas the deposits
reached 2.5 meters in thickness
and for the most part they were
close to the current mound
surface. Generally, they appeared
right under the Roman, or EBA, remains; this section contains massive burnt mud-brick
debris and is distinguished by its yellow-orange-colored charcoal. Such debris and
charcoal can be traced throughout the mound, pointing to the relatively large size of the
settlement at that time. Since the architectural remains that were uncovered from this
phase have already been described in detail elsewhere, only the major characteristics of
this settlement will be outlined here (see Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004).
The excavators have divided this level into two sub-layers since most of the houses from
this phase show at least two renewal phases. The significance of this phase is the result
of its excellent preservation, which in some excavation areas has revealed mud-brick
22 The ten different excavation areas for Level IVb are: P11 (2000), O11 (1998-2000), O12 (1998-2000), N11 (1999-2004), N12 (1998-1999), N13 (2000-2003), M12 (2001), M13 (2001-2002), L13 (2002-2006), and K13 (2005-2006).
Figure 4.5: Plan of settlement IVb at Ulucak.
102
walls up to 1.5 m high. However, there are still some areas where only a small part of the
mud-brick wall or only the stone foundations have survived. The inner architectural
elements, like clay platforms, ovens and storage facilities, were also preserved inside the
houses; although again, the degree of preservation differs from one excavation area to
the other. Some open or lightly covered activity areas were also discovered during the
excavations such as the areas referred to as North Street and South Street. These areas
contain evidence of daily activities like food preparation or tool manufacturing. At least
three buildings, 5, 13 and 19, seem to have lightly covered courtyards, which may have
been used for food preparation or as penning areas (Fig. 4.5).
A representative sample of pottery from this level was studied in detail. These pieces
were found in Buildings 1, 3-6, 8, 10, and 12-14, and Courtyards 9, 11 and 20, as well as
the area designated as North Street (Fig. 4.5). Within these areas the pottery was mostly
recovered from closed contexts, especially building fills and floors, and open areas. In
total 657 diagnostic sherds and complete vessels were analyzed. There are 33 complete
profiles, 353 rim sherds, 183 bases, 59 handles/lugs, 28 decorated body sherds and one
foot piece. Twenty of the complete profiles are currently in two different archaeological
museums in İzmir.23
An additional section on the IVb material and their distribution in the excavated
buildings is provided at the end of this part.
2. Fabric
Eighty-three percent of the assemblage can be assigned to the RSBW (n=545), which
includes coarse and fine variants. Fourteen percent of all RSBW belongs to the coarser
variant. The RSBW-org constitutes 76% and the RSBW-min 24% of the RSBW
assemblage. CSBW (n=37) and red-on-cream (n=4) wares together make up 7% of the
whole assemblage. Coarse ware (n=30) is represented with 5%, whereas Gray ware
(n=8) constitutes only 1%. As usual, gray ware is associated with impressed sherds,
although in this phase many red-slipped impressed sherds also appear.
23 The excavation units for Level IVb are as follows: AMM, AOO, AOP, AOY, APB, APD, APF, APH, APJ, APO, APP, ARA, ARB, ARC, ARD, ARE, ARF, ARN, ARP, ARR, ART, ARV, ARY, ARZ, ASG, ASK, ASN, ATY, ATZ, AUU, AVC, AVD, AVE, AVI, AVJ, AVK, AVM, AVO, AVR, AVY, AYH, AZK, AZM, AZO, AZP, AZR, AZU, BAD, BAF, BAJ, BAK, BAL, BBN, BCEA, BCEB, BCEG, BCES, BCEU, BCEY, BCEZ, BDA, BDE, BDK, BDL, BDO, BFR, BFS, BFY, BGH, BHC, BHD, BIU, BJJ, BLD, BLG, BLU, BMP, BNF, BOI, BOL, BOR, BPC, BPI, BPO, BRE, BRU, BRY, BSC, BSD, BSI, BSJ, BSM, BSN, BSO, BSP, BSS, BSY, BTB, BTC, BTH, BTK, BTL, BTN, BTZ, BUA, BUB, BUC, BZZ, CBH, CEJ, CET, CFJ, CFK, CFT, CGC, CGE, CHA, CHB, CHC, CHF, CIU, CKT, CLH, CLL, CLM, CLN, CLY, CLO, CLP, CLS, CLT, CLV, CLZ, CME, CMI, CMK, COI, CVC, CVD, CVL, and CYV.
103
There are four diagnostic sherds with black and very bright surfaces, tempered with
organic, sand and mica inclusions, which cannot be identified as RSBW or as any other
ware type. These pieces were identified as “other” during the analysis. Since they have
common characteristics they can be tentatively called “black burnished ware;” however,
they might be representative of RSBW that accidentally turned black during the firing
process. Pottery with these properties was not identified in other building phases.
Additionally, due to the heavy fire event observed in this phase many vessels were
secondarily burnt and lost their original paste and surface qualities. Therefore, 28 pieces
are classified as “unidentifiable.”
In terms of non-plastic inclusions all the wares seem to share common components,
nevertheless some slight differences persist. RSBW vessels mostly contain organic
particles, mica and sand as inclusions, but the sand-mica or inclusions of grit occur to a
lesser degree than the other inclusions. Organic-mica-sand inclusions are observed in
365 sherds. The mica-sand combination is seen in 129 examples, while sand-mica-grit
appears only 11 times. The sizes of the non-plastics mainly range between small to
medium and their sums vary from few to abundant. Small-sized non-plastics definitely
dominate in the assemblage (n=475), while large-sized examples only number nine. The
better part of the assemblage contains a regularly occurring amount of inclusions while
abundant totals for the inclusions are also seen frequently (n=117). Few inclusions are
observed on 77 examples. The CSBW contain mostly sand-mica or organic-sand-mica
and rarely contain small grit. Coarse wares have predominantly organic-mica and sandy
material as inclusions. Their size varies from small to medium and their amounts from
regular to abundant. Gray wares mostly have sand-mica and to a lesser degree organic-
mica-sand as their non-plastic inclusions. These inclusions are small in size and they
range from few to regularly occurring amounts. Painted sherds (all red-on-cream)
contain sand-mica inclusions that are small-middle in size and abundant in their quantity.
The majority of the cores are composed of a single-colored paste. Only 50 examples
have two or three-layered cores.24 Three-layered fractures are mostly composed of
brown-gray-brown or orange-gray-orange layers. Gray or dark gray colors are mostly
indicative of incompletely oxidized organic, non-plastic inclusions in the paste. Single-
layered fractures show mainly brown (n=202), dark gray (n=75) and orange (n=122)
24 It should be noted that some of the complete vessels from this layer are being exhibited in museums and therefore their fracture properties could not be studied.
104
colored pastes. Cores that are completely black number 14. Orange, red, cream, and light
brown fractures are present on a combined number of 186 pieces and their pattern of
coloration indicates fully-oxidized firing conditions. Light brown, orange and brown
fractures are mainly associated with sand-mica inclusions, although they also can occur
with organic inclusions. Some of the sherds were apparently exposed to extreme heat,
probably secondarily; this is indicated by their extreme hardness, matte surfaces and red-
pink-yellow cores or almost slag-like appearance. These examples might have burnt
during the fire that destroyed the entire settlement.
Four hundred and fifty-two examples are moderately hard, whereas 132 sherds are very
hard. However, some of the examples seem to have been hardened during a secondary
event, like the aforementioned fire. Fifty-five examples can be classified as “low-fired.”
Four hundred and seven out of 653 sherds have non-porous surfaces. Few vessels have
large pores (n=19). One hundred and eighty-nine examples have small pores on the
surface, mostly left by the burnt chaff. The surfaces of 40 fragments were either worn-
out or completely covered with soil or minerals which prevented all possible inferences
into the porosity levels for these vessels.
Almost all of the examples that have visible surfaces are covered with a layer of slip,
either completely or partially. Cream or red-colored slips are better preserved and thicker
than the slips (probably “self-slips”) seen on gray wares. Burnishing also appears on the
majority of the sherds (n=601). Only 23 sherds seem to have no traces of burnishing.
These are mainly coarse and gray wares. The rest, especially RSBW, CSBW and painted
wares, have burnishing present. Although bright surfaces are dominant in the assemblage
(n=433), 165 pieces have non-bright surfaces. There are also a good number of RSBW
sherds that are burnished, but have non-bright surfaces. Thirty-nine specimens with very
bright surfaces occur in association with RSBW, CSBW and “black burnished ware.”
More than 90 sherds have their surfaces covered with minerals or salt, either completely
or partially. Many of the base fragments are covered with soil on the inside. But as a
whole, there are more well-preserved surfaces that reveal no covering layers. These
mostly have bright surfaces and eight sherds even have burnishing marks on them. In
four cases the marks are vertical; two of them are diagonal and two of them horizontal.
One hundred and five examples show mica glimmering on their surfaces. Thirty-four
examples are clearly mottled and sooting is observed on only 23 examples.
105
There is a variety of surface colors present in the sherds from this level, although orange-
red tones clearly dominate, with 245 red sherds, 183 orange sherds and 44 dark red
sherds. Additionally, there are 32 cream-colored sherds, 77 brown sherds and 15 gray
examples. Dark brown, white and black examples are extremely few. The RSBW are
mainly red or orange, with brown variants appearing less frequently. The CSBW have
cream, light brown or light orange tones and the gray wares are either gray or brown.
Red-on-cream wares are cream, light brown or whitish in color. Finally, coarse wares are
dark brown, brown or orange.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
Apart from more than twenty complete vessels from this phase, which reflects both the
good preservation conditions and the extensive excavation area, the preservation of
vessel fragments is also better in this level than in many other older building phases. For
instance, 168 vessel fragments have sizes larger than 30 cm2 and more than 100 sherds
are equal to or higher than six centimeters. Bases are as a rule better preserved than rim
and body sherds. The worst preservation is seen on lugs or handles. There are around 80
pieces with sizes smaller than 10cm2 and 155 sherds with preserved heights that are
shorter than 3 cm.
3.2. Wall Thickness
The majority of the sherds from this level have wall thicknesses that range between 2-5
mm. Among them, 31 are only 2 mm and 122 sherds are only 3 mm thick. Most of these
pieces are rim sherds, although even base fragments or body sherds can have such thin
walls. Two hundred and forty sherds are 5-7 mm thick. Wall thicknesses that exceed 9
mm are extremely rare, numbering only nine individuals.
Out of 325 rim sherds 93 are 2-3 mm thick, 100 are 4 mm thick and 72 are 5 mm thick.
These values point out just how fine the vessels are. Thin walls (2-3 mm) are mainly
associated with RSBW, red-on-cream ware and CSBW, while thicker walls (between 4-6
mm) can generally be found in the gray wares. Coarse wares from this level have
varying wall thicknesses that mainly range from 3-7 mm. The coarse wares with thin
walls are observed only on miniature vases.
106
3.3. Vessel Shapes
There is great morphological variety among complete profiles preserved in this level.
There are two anthropomorphic vessels (Pl. 15.1, 15.2), one possible brazier (Pl. 6.10),
one bowl with an ‘s’-shaped profile, eight bowls with convex profiles (Pl. 6.1-6.7), one
bowl with straight profiles, four large bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (Pl. 7.1-7.4), three
jars with everted neck (Pl. 10.3, 10.5), two jars without necks, five jars with vertical
necks (Pl. 10.2), three miniature vessels, two jars with short necks, and one offering
table (Pl. 6.9). Two of the deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, one of the bowls with a
straight profile and one of the necked jars have oval bases, and all have ellipsoid forms.
One particular jar with an everted neck (BBN 3872) has an oval base and asymmetrical
body shape that makes it look more like a churn than a normal jar (Pl. 10.5). These oval
forms are peculiar to this level and therefore are of great interest. Anthropomorphic jars
are likewise seen only in this level. Both represent female figures, one sitting and
monochrome and the other standing, holding her breasts; the latter has red-colored
stripes.
The rest of the assemblage is composed of a variety of vessel shapes (Pls. 8-15). The
most frequently occurring forms are as follows: bowls with convex profiles (n=54),
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=34), jars without necks (n=62), jars with short necks
(n=24), jars with everted necks (n=69), jars with vertical necks (n=19), and deep bowls
with convex (n=23) and ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=16). Miniature vessels and beakers (Pl.
6.8) are among those encountered but are as a whole rare vessel types. It is observed that
jars with long necks are frequently produced during the IVb settlement (Pl. 11).
Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles have rim diameters that range between 9-24 cm. Simple
and everted rims are mostly associated with this vessel shape. Both RSBW and CSBW
appear with this particular form. Length of the necks change between 1.5-2.5 cm with
diameters between 9-24 cm. Jars without necks (Pl. 9) are associated with flattened and
everted rims but there are also two bead-rimmed versions that were found with this form.
Rim diameters of jars range between 10-24 cm. Wall thickness of jars without necks can
range between 2-12 mm while most values lie between 4-6 mm. Jars with everted necks
have diameters that range between 8-28 cm, with wall thicknesses that lie between 2-9
mm. Rim types associated with this vessel type are everted and simple types. Deep
bowls with convex profiles (Pl. 14) are associated with RSBW and simple rims that have
diameters ranging between 14- 32 cm. Only one example of a deep bowl has a bead-rim.
107
3.4. Rims
Three hundred and eighty-six rims were analyzed from Level IVb. The rims are
classified according to their morphology as follows: simple (n=179), everted (n=116),
flattened (n=68), sharply everted (n=4), bead-rimmed (n=3), and other (n=6). Simple
rims constitute 47% of all rim types and everted rims make up 30% of the rim types
present. Eighteen percent of the rims are of the flattened form and they generally have
widths that vary between 3-8 mm although the thickest example measures 23 mm.
As mentioned above, all three main rim types occur on jars, bowls and deep bowls.
However, everted and simple rim types are associated more with deep bowls and bowls
with ‘s’-shaped profiles and flattened rims are mainly seen on jars without necks or with
short necks. Three bead-rims encountered in this level are significant since they do not
appear in earlier building phases. Sharply everted rims are also few in number.
Additionally, there are two instances where one knob is placed right on the sherd’s lip.
Bead-rims and lugs placed on the rim are characteristic features of this phase.
3.5. Bases
There are 34 wholly preserved bases in the assemblage. Many bases are pored and
cracked, while others are sooted, worn-out or covered with minerals and exposed to
secondary firing. The majority of bases are simple flat bases (n=150), of which 25 of
them are oval in shape (Pl. 17.10). Sixty-three base fragments are disc bases, with five
belonging to the oval shape variant. Base diameters normally range between 7-20 cm,
with 9.5 cm being the average width for all the bases. Flat bases tend to be wider (9.67
cm on average), whereas disc types are narrower (7.5 cm on average). Finally, disc bases
can be up to 12-14 mm high and there are even some base examples that retained their
body and/or base attachments.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
Eighty lugs and only one loop handle were encountered in the assemblage (Pl. 16.1-
16.14). In full, there are four types of lugs that appear in the analyzed assemblage, these
are: vertically placed tubular lugs (n=30), single knobs (n=32), pierced knobs (n=9), and
double knobs (n=7). Tubular lugs are generally placed in pairs or then separately on four
sides of the vessels (mostly on jar bellies and shoulders), enabling the vessel to stay in
balance when hanged. Tubular lugs can be quiet small in size (e.g. 12 x 14 or 12 x 11
mm) or they may be thin and long reaching 14 x 56 or 12 x 40 mm in two such cases.
108
Another variation is thick and short tubular lugs, as seen on one of the deep bowls which
measures 36 x 9 mm.
Single knobs are placed either horizontally or diagonally to the vessel body and sit on
either the belly or shoulders (Pl. 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.7, 16.9, 16.10). There is also one
circular, button-like knob seen in the assemblage. The widths of the single knobs range
between 7-40 mm and their lengths between 5-40 mm. Wide and short variants measure
31 x 5 or 40 x 8 mm.
Double knobs are seen less frequently (Pl. 16.8, 16.10). They are placed horizontally to
the vessel’s body, measuring in width between 22-35 mm and in length from 7-15 mm.
Finally, pierced knobs are in most cases horizontally placed upon the vessel and have
size ranges of between 9-19 mm for length and 15-36 mm for their width.
3.7. Decoration
Based on the 31 decorated examples of pottery found and analyzed from Phase IVb’s
assemblage, it is clear that decoration on pottery is rare for this phase. Most decoration
constitutes impressions made with fingernails but there are also impressions made with
pointed tools (Pl. 16.1, 16.2). Twenty-four out of 31 decorated examples exhibit
impressions. The execution of the impressions varies. There are shallow-deep, irregular-
regular and intensive-non-intensive variants that leave different types of impressions on
the surface of a vessel. The most commonly observed impression shapes are shallow,
nail-thin horizontal impressions, deep triangular shapes, deep half circles, and tear-drops.
An assortment of these motifs can easily appear on the same vessel and can change their
orientation as, most likely was the case, the potter turned the vessel in his hand.
Additionally, there are four red-on-cream painted sherds, two pieces with plastic
decorations and one punctuated body sherd. An anthropomorphic vessel with red stripes
is the only complete vessel with painted decoration. All of the painted examples of
sherds are red-on-cream and they are patterned with either thick single bands (11 mm
wide) or thin horizontal bands.
4. Distribution of Pottery in Level IVb Buildings
The aim here is to present the results of pottery analysis in relation to the buildings that
were exposed. Using rim sherds, whole vessels and the recognized building types present
I have tried to reconstruct the correlation between vessel shapes and various buildings.
109
This reconstruction was executed in order to understand the functional variation in
different parts of the buildings, as well as to see whether patterns emerge in terms of the
distribution of different kinds of pottery vessels in the settlement. To achieve this goal, I
concentrated on the fills of well-preserved buildings and the pottery that was collected
from their floors (Tab. 4.2).
Buildings/ Complete vessels
Crty 20
Bld 1
Bld 3
Bld 4
Bld 5
Bld 6
Bld 8
Bld 10
Crty 11
Bld 12
Bld 13
Bld 14
Bld 19
Bowl with ‘s’-shaped profile 1 - - - - - - 1 - - - - -
Bowl with straight profile 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1
Bowl with convex profile - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - 1 -
Jar with everted neck - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - Deep bowl with ‘s’-
shaped profile - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - -
Jar with vertical neck - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - Jar with short neck - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jar without neck - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -
Anthropomorphic vessel - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 -
Miniature vessel - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - Offering table - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Brazier - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Table 4.2: Number of complete vessels found in the buildings of Settlement IVb.
Building 1
This is a small sized building adjacent to the Building 8 in grid O11. The western and
southern walls of this building did not survive. Therefore it is not possible to reconstruct
the original plan. The floor of the building was exposed at 219.72 m. On the floor, five
complete oval shaped bases were found in situ. At least two of these belong to jars,
whereas one of them is probably an open vessel. Other rim fragments point to various
jars present in the building. One whole profile from this building belongs to a jar with
vertical neck, whose neck is 5 cm high and base is oval. There is one rim sherd which
belongs to a bowl with convex profile and one belonging to a bowl with ‘s’-shaped
profile. There are no decorated vessels from this building.
Building 325
This is a mud-brick building with up to one meter of preserved walls in grid N11d. The
inner space contained several features like a clay platform and a flat-roofed oven. Its
floor was discovered at 219.41 m. There is only one complete vessel recovered from this
building – an oval-based bowl with a convex profile (BDA 3873). The other rim
25 Building 3 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: AUU, AZK, BCEG, BDA, BDE, BFR, BFS, BFY, BGH, BHC, BHD, and COI.
110
fragments indicate the presence of other jars, bowls and deep bowls in the building; they
measure roughly 20-50 cm2 in size. Nineteen jar, 15 bowl and 4 deep bowl fragments
were identified; and the majority of them come from the west part of the building.
Additionally, there were seven decorated sherds belonging to at least four different
vessels found in this building. One of them has plastic decorations and the rest are
decorated with impressions. The impressed pieces belong to the RSBW and gray wares.
The impressions are either in the shape of half circles or then they are shallow fingernail-
impressions.
Building 426
This building is located to the north of Building 3 in grid N11c. It is a mud-brick
building with stone foundations that measure approximately 6 x 3.2 m. The excavators
recognized two building phases for this structure. The inner architectural elements
include one flat-roofed oven, located close to the southwest corner of the building and a
clay platform. The floor of the building is found at 218.87 m. This area yielded two
whole sherd profiles; one from a miniature bowl with a convex profile (Excavation Unit:
BDK 4120) and another from one jar with a vertical neck (Excavation Unit: BDL 4006).
There are also at least two necked jars from this building. One of the necks is 4.2 cm and
the other 7.8 cm high. Finally, there is one cream-slipped, impressed body sherd that was
found in the northeast part of the building.
Building 527
Building 5 is a rectilinear mud-brick building built on stone foundations that measure
circa 6 x 6.5 m. The building is located in grids N12 and M12. Northern and
northwestern parts of the building did not survive well. There is a door on the east wall
opening to Courtyard 9. The floor was found at elevations 218.74-218.59 m. The fact
that no inner architectural elements were discovered in the building is unusual for
Ulucak when compared with the other buildings from the same phase. There is not a
single whole sherd profile found in the building. The rim sherds, of which also have poor
preservation, provide information on various vessel shapes that might have been present
in the building. There are six bowl fragments, four with ‘s’-shaped profiles and two with
convex profiles. There are nine fragments of jars with everted necks, five sherds from
26 Building 4 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: BDK, BDL, CHF, and BDO. 27 Building 5 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: APH, ARV, ARY, ARZ, ASK, ASN, BAK, and BCA.
111
jars without necks and only one deep bowl with an ‘s’-shaped profile. One jar with a
short neck has a bead-rim, something that appears seldom in the assemblage.
Building 628
Building 6 is another rectilinear mud-brick building in grid N12 and has an area of
approximately 30m2. The plastered floor was unearthed at elevation 218.55 m. Two
ovens and two clay platforms were discovered in the building. The oven was found
adjacent to the western wall and next to it was a 20 cm high clay platform. Both were
relatively well-preserved and the latter feature measures 2.15 x 1.5 m. The other oven,
found on the southern wall, was not preserved well enough to reconstruct its shape.
Large numbers of stone tools were found on the clay platforms. Loom weights were
found on the eastern part of the northern platform.
One of the most interesting finds from this building is a very coarse, unfired mud bowl
which held one female figurine and lithics (Excavation Unit: ASM). It was found in
front of the damaged southern oven (Abay 2003: 18). The figurine is standing and
headless. The body shape is typical for the Anatolian female figurines, with thick
rounded legs and belly. This deposition is very reminiscent of the cache found in
Building 13, suggesting that this could have been part of a ritual activity undertaken by
the Ulucak community.
Most of the pottery from this building was found on the east side of the building in front
of the eastern wall on the floor. There is one complete vessel from the building, which
was found in pieces and then restored. It is a 16 cm high jar with an everted neck
(Excavation Unit: BBN 3872). It has an interesting asymmetrical shape with a fairly long
neck that is 5.6 cm high; its rim diameter is 11 cm. The base is oval-shaped and flat with
a diameter measuring 7 x 4.9 cm. The surface is orange, matte, cracked, and covered
with a transparent whitish layer. Such surfaces appear only on vessels that were exposed
to high temperatures during their use life. It is tempered with chaff, mica, sand, and grits.
It has two diagonally placed shallow lugs on two sides, which must have hardly been
functional. Eight jar, three bowl and one deep bowl fragment complete the assemblage
from this building.
28 Building 6 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: AMM, AZM, BAD, BBN, BCB, BCS, BCY, and BCZ.
112
Building 829
Building 8 is a rectilinear mud-brick building that was built on single row stone
foundations. It is located mainly in grids O11c-d and measures 8 x 6 m in size. The walls
were preserved up to 87 cm and are plastered on the inside. The fill of the building is
hard, yellow-colored and in some locations greenish. The inner space is divided into two
by leveling and a thin mud wall. It was noted that the western part of the building is
higher than the eastern part. The eastern part of the building contained apparent fire
traces with many carbonized seeds. Two carbon dates were obtained from these charred
remains, yielding conventional radiocarbon ages of 6900±70BP and 6980±60BP.
Archaeobotanical analysis on the charred organic material revealed two big
concentrations of einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum) from this area, one containing
8,500 and the other 6,800 grains (Megaloudi 2005). It is very probable that the eastern
part of the building was utilized as a store room. Another interesting feature about this
section was the discovery of plastered wall fragments at 219.71 m deep. These wall
fragments have brown-colored paintings on them displaying dots and wavy lines
(Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004: 25).
Around 10 relatively well-preserved pottery vessels were recovered from the western
part of Building 8. The pots were found lying separately on the floor, of which has an
elevation of 219.37 m. The pots are all crushed from a probable roof and mud-brick wall
collapse that occurred as a result of a heavy fire. Evidence for this fire can be seen on the
pottery uncovered from this area in the form of their matte, cracked surfaces that are
covered with a whitish transparent layer and red-pinkish pastes. Additionally, the pieces
have a definite hardness and some even appear slag-like.
Of all the pots that were found in pieces on the floor, two turned out to be complete. One
of these is an anthropomorphic vessel, found adjacent to the western wall of the building
(Excavation Unit: APJ 3032), and the other is a deep bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile
(Excavation Unit: ARR 3158) that was found towards the western wall but was not
attached to it. The anthropomorphic vessel is 21 cm high whereas the large bowl is 16.5
cm high.
Other vessels that could not be wholly restored include one jar with a short neck
(Excavation Unit: ARF 3155) and three jars with everted necks (Excavation Units: ARP
29 Building 8 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: AOO, AOP, AOY, APD, APF, APJ, APO, APP, ARA, ARB, ARD, ARE, ARF, ARP, ARR, ART, ASG, ATY, ATZ, AVC, AVK, AVO, and AVR.
113
3152, ARD 3154, AVO 3514). Some of the vessels only had their bases survive; these
include ARE 3156, AVK 3697 and AVK 3698. It seems like all the well-preserved
vessels are middle-large sized jars. One of the jars has a 24 cm rim diameter (Excavation
Unit: ARF 3155) and quite possibly could be taller than 60 cm.
All of the vessels that were found lying on the floor deposit of Building 8 are RSBW
except for the anthropomorphic vessel which has the same evidence of fire damage seen
on the other post-depositionally altered pieces with the characteristic cracked matte
surface and so forth. On this latter vessel, one can distinguish a cream surface color that
has red paintings upon it. The paintings are in the form of stripes and can be observed on
the face, shoulders, neck, and lower body of the vessel. The placement of these painted
patterns may indicate body painting or some sort of clothing on the anthropomorphic
figure. Additionally, the soil that was found in the vessel did not contain any plant
remains.
The vessel body appears to have been formed in four steps. First the lower body was
made, then the upper body, and then the neck was attached to the upper body. The arms
and the nose for the piece must have been formed and attached at the very end, before
the clay was dry. These last two anthropomorphic features are articulated, with the arms
holding the breasts. The feet can also be distinguished on the piece.
The differing rim types as well as rim diameters found on several pieces confirms that
there are other rim sherds from this assemblage that do not belong to any of the above
mentioned vessels.30 Other rim sherds from the fill of Building 8 belong to three jars
with short necks, nine jars without necks, six jars with everted necks, four jars with
vertical necks, two deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, two bowls with convex profiles,
and five bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles.
The number of decorated diagnostic sherds from this building is very low. Apart from
the painted anthropomorphic vessel, there is only one red-slipped, impressed body sherd
that was decorated intensively with half circles. Whether this piece belongs to one of the
vessels is unclear.
30 The two exceptions to this are rim sherd AOO 2815 and rim sherd AOP 2244. Each one has an identical rim type, diameter, ware, surface type, and vessel shape.
114
Courtyard 931
This is an area in front of Building 5 that is surrounded with a 20-30 cm thick, 7 m long
wattle-and-daub wall. This wall has an opening, indicated by a wooden threshold,
leading to the open area known as North Street. The floor of the courtyard is earthen and
is at an elevation of 218.68 m. In the courtyard, a hearth and a concentration of various
grinding instruments were found near to one another. A female figurine (Excavation
Unit: AUS 321) was also uncovered in the courtyard, where the walls of Buildings 5 and
6 join.
There are a few well-preserved pottery sherds that were collected from this area; some
have heights reaching up to 6 cm. All the sherds are RSBW with chaff pores on their
outer and/or inner surface. The vessel shapes include two fragments from a large bowl
that has a convex profile, one bowl with a convex profile, one jar without a neck, and
one jar with an everted neck. The large bowl and the jar without the neck both have
sooted areas on the outside, which might indicate that they were used as cooking vessels.
The jar with the neck is most likely small in size with a rim diameter of 8 cm. The bowls
have larger mouths with diameters of around 20 cm. One knob fragment belonging to a
coarse RSBW vessel was found in the area and shows shallow irregular line impressions
across its body that were made with an extremely thin point.
Building 1032
Building 10 in grid O12 is fairly damaged due to the massive Bronze Age and
Chalcolithic Period architectural remains which lay on top of it. Due to this destructive
impact, only partially preserved stone foundations and small parts of the mud-brick wall
belonging to this building, together with a poorly preserved hearth, could be recovered
(Fig. 4.6). The nearly one meter fill of the building was gray and ashy. The floor is
detected at different elevations (between 218.01-217.78 m) in different parts of the
trench due to the sloping of the mound.
31 Courtyard 9 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: AVY, AZR and BBN. 32 Building 10 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: BLG, BLU, BLY, BMP, BNH, BOI, BOR, BPC, BSF, BSG, BSY, BTA, BTB, and BTC.
115
The hard surface of the floor obtained its gray-black color because of a fire. The fill and
the floor yielded pottery that is surprisingly well-preserved, including four whole
vessels. One bowl with a convex profile (Excavation Unit: BOR 4703) was uncovered in
the fill and one almost complete deep bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile (Excavation Unit:
BTB 4962) was found on the floor. The latter has an ellipsoid shape with an oval base
and two diagonally placed knobs on its belly. Areas close to the mouth of the vessel are
highly mottled on one side, otherwise it is a fine orange-colored, slipped and burnished
deep bowl with only 3 mm of wall thickness.
Two nearly identical deep bowls (Excavation Units: BLU 5378 and BLU 5435) that are
oval-shaped, have ‘s’-shaped profiles and flat bases, were found in the building at an
elevation of 219.06 m. Another almost completely preserved bowl with a ‘s’-shaped
profile (Excavation Unit: BTC 5798) was likewise found in the building at an elevation
of 217.73 m. It is an 11 cm high bowl with an oval carinated base, an oval mouth and
one knob. The paste is dark gray with organic, sand and mica inclusions while the
surface is mottled with colors ranging from brown, orange to red. Finally, there is one
miniature cup in the shape of a bowl. It has a convex profile that has a depth of only 4
cm (Excavation Unit: BOI 4891). There are limestone pieces as non-plastic inclusion in
the miniature cup’s paste; these pieces cracked the surface in some spots (so-called lime
spalling) that are visible in areas where the slip did not preserve well.
Figure 4.6: Burnt remains and stone foundations of Building 10 in Grid O12.
116
Other than the aforementioned vessels, eight jars, eight bowls and three large bowl
fragments were also uncovered from this area.
Courtyard 1133
This is a 2.5-3 m wide area aligned with North Street and adjacent to Buildings 12 and
13. The borders of the courtyard are not clear along the western part of the area, however
the eastern walls for this area are the western walls of Buildings 12 and 13.
One oven with a form of ventilation oriented towards the street was found in the
courtyard. The excavators mention that around the oven many green colored pottery
pieces, as well as ceramic slags, were found. This evidence might indicate that this
particular oven was used to fire pottery. There may have also been another oven on the
northern part of the courtyard but unfortunately it was found to be too damaged to say
for sure.
Another architectural feature from the area is a bin found at a depth of 217.92 m and
almost right next to the oven. One jar was found standing upside down in the bin
(Excavation Unit: BSZ 18928). The rim of the jar is missing but the rest of the vessel
33 Courtyard 11 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: BRY, BSJ, BSN, BSP, BSZ, BTL, BTZ, and BUA.
Figure 4.7: Crushed jars found in situ in Courtyard 11.
117
body could be restored. It is a reddish brown-slipped and burnished flat-based jar that
has no neck or lugs. The belly of the vessel is remarkably ellipsoid and wide.
Another vessel, a deep bowl with a straight profile (Excavation Unit: BSP 5790), was
found in the courtyard at elevations between 218.16-217.82 m. This is an open vessel
with a 35 cm rim diameter, which for Ulucak IV standards is surprisingly high.
Additionally, one pestle and nine polished axes were found in this same deposit.
In comparison to Courtyard 9, more vessel fragments were found in Courtyard 11 (Fig.
4.7). These include nine jar fragments, two deep bowls and four bowls of various types.
Necks of the jars are around 4.5-5.7 cm high with rim diameters of 10-15 cm. However,
the deep bowls have rim diameters of up to 26 cm. One of the jars and one of the deep
bowls are CSBW, whereas the rest are generally made up of the coarse variant of
RSBW. There are two impressed body sherds, one is RSBW and the other is gray ware.
Unfortunately, some of the rim fragments from the courtyard are small in size and so one
cannot be sure whether they were original elements of the courtyard or whether they
arrived to the courtyard through post-depositional disturbances. On the other hand, there
are at least four almost complete jar bases that most probably belong to these vessel rim
fragments. One can tentatively conclude that the courtyard contained around 7-8 ceramic
vessels at the time of the fire.
Building 1234
This is a mud-brick building with plastered walls which were preserved in some areas up
to 2 m. Only the northern part of the structure was excavated, it is located in grid N13b-
d. The floor of the building appears to have been plastered during its use at least three
times and has evidence of severe damage caused by the heavy collapse of the walls and
roof (Derin et al. 2003: 242).
There is an “L”-shaped wattle and daub wall protruding from the northern wall of the
building which divides the inner space into eastern and western sections. The excavators
suggest that a concentration of 11 loom weights (216.83 m) next to this wall implies that
this area was used as a textile manufacturing activity area. It is worth noting that there is
further evidence which supports this idea in the form of an assortment of finds which are
related to textile production. Among these artifacts is one clay stamp with concentric
34 Building 12 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: BRU, BSM, BTN, BUC, CMI, CMK, CVD, and CVL.
118
circles, flat and worked stones, flint and obsidian lithics (including one scraper), pierced
shells, 6 pierced beads in the shape of water droplets, one sling missile, one cylindrical-
shaped clay object, and pestles. All were found at a depth of 216.82 m. In the same
deposit, on the eastern side of this collapsed inner wall, an unburnished and unslipped
miniature vessel in the shape of a tiny-necked jar (only 4.8 cm high) was found
(Excavation Unit: CVL 11878). It has four vertically attached tubular lugs on the belly,
which indicate that it was hanged somewhere, probably on the wall or a wooden post.
Apart from this small vessel, pottery fragments belonging to nine jars, five bowls with
convex profiles, two bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, one deep bowl with a ‘s’-shaped
profile, one miniature jar, and one beaker could be identified as originating from
Building 12. There are also four impressed body sherds from the area, two with regular
tear-drops and two with shallow horizontal impressions. All four pieces seem to belong
to different vessels. Finally, one whole jar base with a 13 cm base diameter was found
adjacent to the eastern wall of the building. It was found together with many of its
associated body sherds but unfortunately could not be refitted.
Most of the pottery from this building is red-colored and has bright surfaces. There are a
few orange, brown and gray-colored examples. However, most of the time the fractures
are single-layered and dark gray or brown.
Building 1335
Building 13 is a rectilinear mud-brick building built on stone foundations that were
excavated in areas N13 and M13 in 2000-2002. Its area reaches 7 x 5.5 m, covering an
area of almost 40 m2 and making it one of the biggest buildings in Ulucak IVb (Fig. 4.8).
The northern, western and southern walls of the building are exposed whereas the
eastern wall must have remained in grid N14, which was not excavated. There is a door
opening on the west wall which leads to Courtyard 11 and from there to the open area
called North Street. The excavators found out that this house was divided into two
sections, which is indicated by a badly preserved, thin mud-brick wall that runs in an E-
W direction in the house. The smaller of the two rooms measures 5.6 x 2 m (Çilingiroğlu
et al. 2004: 29). The floor of the building is made out of beaten earth and was found at
217.66 m.
35 Building 13 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: BSI, BSO, BTK, BUB, BSI, CHB, CLH, CLL, CLM, CLN, CLO, CLP, CLS, CLT, CLV, CLY, CLZ, CME, CVC, and CYV.
119
The northern space contains one
flat-roofed oven adjacent to a clay
platform and a hearth. Two wooden
posts that are 15 cm thick were
unearthed in the middle of the
northern space. The excavators
suggest that they supported the roof.
One of the wooden beams was fit
into a mortar.
In addition, a number of grinding
instruments (pestles and mortars)
were found in the area, along with
some burnt wooden posts.
Archaeobotanical analysis revealed
that charred grains (90 six-rowed barley seeds) were also present (Megaloudi 2005). This
combination of finds supports the suggestion made by excavators already at other
buildings and courtyards, which postulates that grain bags were hung from these posts
(Derin et al. 2003: 242).
The southern part of the building has seen considerable damage due to its collapsed
mud-brick walls. However, the eastern wall has two hearths that were found next to each
other.
The southeastern part of the building yielded three interesting features which need to be
described here. The first notable feature is red paint that was discovered on the
southeastern part of the wall. It seems like this wall was completely or partially coated
with red paint. It may even have been painted with the same material used for slipping
pottery. Secondly, a bowl holding two figurines and around 20 pieces of chipped lithic
material was found in front of this painted wall at an elevation of 217.3 m. The bowl is
not preserved wholly, however it is certain that it is an oval-based bowl with a convex
profile (Excavation Unit: CYV). The vessel wall is five millimeters thick and has
medium-sized non-plastic inclusions that include chaff, mica and sand. The fracture is
single-layered and brown-colored. The inner surface is worn-out, whereas the outer
surface is non-porous, orange slipped, burnished, and bright.
Figure 4.8: High mud-brick walls belonging to Building 13 and 12 in Grid N13.
120
The third significant feature which is worth mentioning is a so-called “offering table”
(Excavation Unit: CLV 1296) that was found in one of the rather damaged hearths from
the southeast part of the building. It was found at a depth of 217.55 m and is 5.4 cm
wide, 2.9 cm high, and square-shaped. It is a small container that originally had four feet,
of which only two have survived. The piece is only 4-5 mm deep with a 6 mm wall
thickness. Despite its small size, the offering table is heavy due to the large-sized grits
used as temper in its paste. It is extremely hard, probably due to a secondary fire. There
are no sooted areas on the piece. As a whole, the surface of the offering table is non-
porous, slipped, cream-colored, burnished, and non-bright. It is more like a coarse type
of cream-slipped and burnished ware. The deposition of this vessel in the hearth is
curious. There is no other comparable find context from Ulucak. It is also unclear
whether the previously mentioned bowl with figurines and chipped lithics was related to
the offering table.
Other than the above mentioned vessels, one jar with an everted neck (Excavation Unit:
CLY 8699) was found in the northern part of the building. It has a height of 30 cm, a rim
diameter of 13 cm and a base diameter of 9.8 cm. Its size indicates that this jar may have
been used as a storage vessel.
Building 13 also contained fragments of 24 jars, 12 bowls and one deep bowl. Sixteen of
the jars have necks, four of them being short necks. All of the vessel fragments which
were found in the area where charred grains, wooden posts and grinding instruments
were also found have black bright surfaces and completely black fractures (again, this is
probably due to the fact that they were exposed to fire together with the organic
remains). The rest of the vessel fragments are dominated by red and orange bright
surfaces and orange or dark gray cores. Almost all of the vessels have organic inclusions
in the clay and very few have small grits.
Building 1436
This is a building excavated in 2000 in grids P11 a-c. Because grids b and d were left
unexcavated, only the northern section of this structure was uncovered. It has partially
preserved mud-brick walls with stone foundations (Fig. 4.9). There is a door opening on
the northern wall, which leads to the area called South Street. The floor of this building
was found at 218.67 m and is dark yellow and made out of beaten earth. There is a stone
36 Building 14 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: BNF, BOL, BPI, BPO, BRE, BSC, BSD, BSS, and BTH.
121
foundation in the house which is protruding from the northeastern wall towards the
south. The thin, wattle-and-daub wall may have divided the house into two sections.
There are two interesting pottery vessels
that were found sitting on the floor at the
eastern part of the building. One of them is
the biggest vessel ever found at Ulucak
with a height of 81 cm (Excavation Unit:
BTH 5813). It is highly likely that this
huge vessel, with a flat base and long neck,
was used as a storage unit. The rim
diameter is 24 cm and the base is 18.5 cm
wide. The vessel’s belly is its widest part
and reveals twelve repair marks. These
marks imply that the potter had technical
problems when he/she was building this
large-sized vessel. The asymmetrical form
of the jar is also indicative of the
difficulties found in producing such a vessel. It seems likely that this vessel was built in
four major steps: first the neck, then the upper vessel body, followed by the lower vessel
body, and then the base. The piece could have been produced with a combination of
techniques, like slab building and coiling separately. The most problematic part of the
process was attaching the upper and lower body parts. The upper body was probably too
heavy to stand on the lower part and therefore was slightly deformed. There is also one
tiny knob on the belly of the piece which may not have been functional. The whole
vessel is slipped as well as burnished. The surface is brownish-red to red and bright. The
paste includes sand and small grit as inclusions. It is not known what was stored in the
vessel; no evidence in this sense was documented during the excavation. It is possible
that the vessel was empty as the house burnt down. Such large vessels are rare in Ulucak
IV and V, although there is one other big one that is higher than 60 cm (Excavation Unit:
CLY 11314). This piece is a storage vessel from Ulucak IVb.
The second interesting vessel found in the same section of the building is an
anthropomorphic vessel in the shape of a seated woman (Excavation Unit: BPO 5434). It
was discovered on the floor in the southern section of the excavation grid. Unfortunately,
Figure 4.9: Building 14 in Grid P11.
122
the vessel is not complete because the upper part, where the face, shoulders and arms
would be, is missing. It is difficult to infer the original form of the piece, for example,
whether this woman was also holding her breasts or not. In terms of shape and
technological properties this anthropomorphic vessel is very different from APJ 3032.
The paste includes organic, mica, sand, and small grit inclusions. The fracture is single-
colored and brown. The wall is only 4 mm thick and while the outer surface is slipped,
fine-porous, burnished, orange-brown, and bright, there is no decoration or paint on the
vessel. The inner surface is left unworked. The back part of the vessel is flat which might
indicate that it was made to lean on a wall. It seems like the rounded legs were executed
separately and then attached to the body.
Additionally, there is another bowl that was found in the western section of the building
(Excavation Unit: BSD 12706). This is a red-slipped and well-burnished bowl with a
convex profile and a flat round base. It is only 6.7 cm high and the walls are four
millimeters thick. Almost half of the vessel was restored.
Other vessel fragments in Building 14 are as follows: one short-necked jar, three jars
without necks, one jar with an everted neck, one jar with a vertical neck, four bowls with
convex profiles, and two bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles. These fragments are all rim
sherds that are medium in size. The ware repertoire is dominated by fine red-slipped and
burnished wares that are tempered with organic, mica and sand. However, there are rim
sherds belonging to a bowl that is a coarse ware. There are also two impressed body
sherds, one is gray ware that has deep irregular nail impressions and the other piece is
RSBW with deep triangular impressions. Another body sherd (Excavation Unit: BNF
5129) that is red-on-cream painted was found colored with two red bands. There is also
one tiny body sherd that has a unique decoration on its surface, which was executed with
a needle-like tool and left tiny piercings on the its red-slipped and burnished surface.
Finally, there were also two oval bases found from this building.
Building 1937
This is a quadrangular building that has a plastered floor at 218.06 meter deep. It was
excavated partially in the eastern section of grid M13 and the remaining part of the
building is located in an unexcavated grid (M14). Mud-brick walls and stone foundations
37 Building 19 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: CFT, CGE and CHC.
123
were discovered as part of this building. Additionally, it has an 80 cm wide door that
opens from its long eastern wall and leads to Courtyard 20.
The fill of the building contained many small finds as well as fragments of ceramic
vessels. One whole vessel was found when the northern wall was exposed. This is a
bowl with a straight profile and three knobs on the belly; it is 9.1 cm high and has a 14
cm rim diameter (Excavation Unit: CHC 7974). In the same area, lithics, animal bones,
four grinding stones, and one pestle were also recovered.
During the removal of the collapsed southern mud-brick wall rim sherds belonging to
different jars were found (Excavation Unit: CFT). This same deposit also included some
common finds, like animal bones and lithics, but also polished axes, one animal figurine,
one bone needle, and 22 beads.
Courtyard 2038
To the west of Building 19, an
open area with a width of 2.6
m and length of circa 5 m was
excavated and is designated as
Courtyard 20. This courtyard is
bordered by a 0.4 m thin wall
that belongs to the open area
called North Street in the
Ulucak publications
(Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004).
Although it has suffered heavy
destruction from Late Roman
through Early Byzantine
disturbances, Courtyard 20 contains evidence for the daily activities that took place in
this area, such as fire installations, ovens and grinding instruments (Fig. 4.10).
Numerous lithic finds, burnishing tools and loom weights are among the other finds from
the area. The separation of this area from the communal open areas might indicate that
only one household conducted activities here.
38 Courtyard 20 is made up of the following analyzed excavation units: CEJ, CET, CFK, CHA, CKT, CBH, CFJ, CGC, and CIU.
Figure 4.10: Courtyard 20 with bins and grinding stones and Building 18 in Grid M13.
124
A large number of fragments of jars, bowls and deep bowls were also found in the
courtyard. One fragment of a jar with an everted neck (Excavation Unit: CBH) was
found inside the hearth and in the area surrounding this hearth pieces of jars, animal
bones, lithics, and sling bullets were discovered (Excavation Units: CFJ, CGC). One
small bowl with a straight profile (Excavation Unit: CET 7027), holding a bone needle,
was found on a platform at 218.12 m. Another bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile was found
incomplete on the floor level of the courtyard association with other ceramics, sling
missiles, grinding stones, and two clay balls. The nature of these finds indicates that in
general cooking and food preparation were taking place in this area.
To the south of Building 19, in the alley-like space between Buildings 19 and 13, an
animal skeleton was excavated. It is suggested that it was killed by the collapsing walls
during the time of the fire that destroyed the settlement (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004: 23).
125
D. Layer IVc
1. Description of the phase
Cultural deposits belonging to Phase IVc were unearthed mainly at two excavation areas:
N11 and O11.
At N11, the IVb architecture was removed in 2001 and 2002 by Atilla Batmaz in order
to reach the earlier deposits. Although the substantial IVb deposits caused considerable
damage to the building phase situated right beneath it, the excavators were able to
recover several remains. Included amongst these remnants are burnt mud-brick pieces
and burnt, black-colored, plastered floor remains that are 3-4 cm thick. The floor remains
were located in various parts of the trench at elevations of between 218.39-218.15 m.
Additionally, these floors were designated as Building 15 and Building 16 and have two
oval-shaped hearths, many grinding stones, clay platforms, a good number of clay balls,
a large amount of pottery, and a concentration of flintstones around an upside-down
bowl associated with them.
Building 16 contained collapsed and burnt mud-brick deposits. In the middle of this area,
right above the burnt floor, a circular carved stone was found, which probably housed a
wooden post that supported the roof. These finds, together with a hearth (218.41 m) and
clay working areas, complete the architectural features from this structure.
Figure 4.11: (Left) Inside the marked area are buildings 15 and 16 shown with clay lumps, various stone objects and the grinding stones from their grid, N11b (218.42 m.). Figure 4.12: (Right) Marked area is the south side of Grid N11a, where the floor of Building 15 is exposed at 218.36 m. Note the crushed pottery vessels on the floor.
126
According to the excavator, the area called Building 15 could have been a pottery
workshop because the clay balls, which were found laying adjacent to a hearth, are
interpreted as the clay lumps used to produce pottery (Figs. 4.11; 4.12). Alternatively,
finds such as grinding stones, pestles, pottery pieces, flint concentrations, and the clay
balls might also suggest a cooking area. A third possibility, since the walls of this
“building” could not be found, is that this was an open area, where various daily
activities took place, such as food preparation, cooking, and/or tool or pottery
manufacture. If this structure was an open area, remains of burnt wood pieces on the
floor might suggest that it was a covered open area.
Material collected from Buildings 15 and 1639 (N11) provides a reliable and good picture
of how the vessels looked and with what kind of objects they were relation to. The
remains from this phase covered more than 50 m2 and are burnt, which suggests that a
fire ended this phase.
At O11, excavations conducted in 2001 by Ali Ozan revealed remains from Phase IVc.
The deposits are dominated by burnt floors and a yellowish soil at the southeast end and
a gray-ashy to gray-black colored soil at the north part of the trench. The excavated
floors display different properties which, according to the excavator, must be related to a
fire event.
The remains of an oven were discovered on the north floor together with a mud-brick
construction, whose function could not be determined. Based on the finds found inside
this construction, which include many obsidian pieces and a small clay ball, the
excavator interpreted it as some kind of a storage unit. The north floor also contained
many pottery sherds, grinding stones, flint tools, bone tools, sling missiles, stone axes,
burnishing stones, and animal bones.
Two hundred and fifteen diagnostic pieces from both of the aforementioned areas (N11
and O11) are included in this analysis. These pieces were found either on the burnt floors
mentioned above or around the oven and hearths. They are made up of a single complete
profile, 114 rim sherds, 71 bases, 15 lugs, and 14 decorated body sherds.40 The majority
of the analyzed sherds come from N11, in total 162 pieces. The sherds are generally
well-preserved and have bright surfaces; however, some pottery pieces, especially those 39 The analyzed excavation codes from N11 are: CIK, CLF, CMH, COB, CON, COO, COZ, and CPA. 40 The analyzed excavation codes from O11 are: CGT, CHK, CIK, CJS, CJT, CJV, CKA, CKD, CKN, CLA, CLB, CLF, CMH, CMJ, CML, CMN, CMO, COB, CON, COO, COZ, CPA, DTV, and DUF.
127
from N11b contexts (the ones found on the floor of Building 15), revealed partly burnt
surfaces.
2. Fabric
In this layer, the wares are dominated by RSBW, which makes up 92% of all analyzed
pieces (n=198). Additionally, 92% of all the RSBW belongs to the RSBW-org variant.
Gray ware, which is represented with eight examples, constitutes the second largest
group at only 3% (n=7) of the total. Coarse and cream-slipped wares are present in the
assemblage with five examples in total. In terms of their ware category, there are four
unidentifiable sherds.
Most of the red-slipped sherds analyzed from this phase were recovered on the burnt
floor of Building 15, which was uncovered in several different parts of trench N11 in
2001 and 2002; and at trench O11 in 2001. The rest was collected from the collapsed
deposits of Ivc, which is mostly composed of mud-brick pieces and yellowish or gray-
ashy soil.
The non-plastic inclusions of the RSBW show a homogeneous appearence that is
characterized by the co-occurrence of organic, mica and sand inclusions. Small grits and
lime are observed in a number of sherds, occurring together with organic, mica and
sandy material. More than half of the assemblage (65%) displays small-sized inclusions
but sherds with medium-sized inclusions also occur frequently (32%). Sherds with
regularly occurring amounts of inclusions number 134 (62%), whereas abundant
amounts of inclusions are observed in 74 pieces. Sherds with large-sized inclusions tend
to have more inclusion particles. Sherds with small or medium-sized inclusions mostly
have regularly occurring to abundant amounts of inclusions.
The majority of the fractures have a single color (n=175), dominated by gray, dark gray
and brown colors. Completely orange and black fractures occur very seldom. Fractures
with three layers make up 14% of the assemblage with the most frequently occurring
combinations being: brown-gray-brown, orange-gray-orange or brown-dark gray-brown
There are also two-layered and multi-colored fractures observed in 19 pieces; again, they
have brown, gray and occasionally orange colors. Gray and dark gray cores point
towards carbonized organic material that existed in the paste during the firing.
128
The hardness of the sherds range between hard (n=50) to moderate (n=153), with few
soft examples; this suggests relatively good firing conditions. The majority of the
surfaces are non-porous, although fine porous surfaces also occur.
All of the sherds are slipped and burnished. The slip generally covers both the outer and
inner surfaces, although some examples bear no slip on their inside. With the exception
of 11 pieces (six of which are impressed), all of the sherds are burnished and some even
have traces of vertical burnishing. A great number of the sherds have bright (71%) to
very bright (14%) surfaces. Pieces with non-bright surfaces appear rarely (n=32).
Mottled surfaces, which may result from irregular oxidization during the firing process,
also appear relatively seldom. As mentioned above, many sherds display traces of
burning, which probably appeared from contact with the fire that destroyed Building 15.
One of the interesting properties of IVc pottery is the occasional occurrence of micaceus
surfaces, observed on 38 examples. It is not clear whether this was an intentional
practice, a consequence of the firing conditions or related to the high concentration of
mica in the clay.
There is a variety of surface colors present in the sherds from this phase. Red (n=83),
orange (n=42), dark red (n=25), and brown (n=36) surfaces are seen in the majority of
the assemblage. There are a few examples of gray, light brown and dark brown sherds.
One third of the sherds display a regular color distribution (n=76) and the rest have an
irregular distribution of color (n=362).
As mentioned previously, gray ware is represented with only seven pieces, two from
N11 and five from O11. Only one of the gray ware sherds was recovered from the floor
of Building 15 (Excavation Unit: COZ), the rest were found in the mud-brick deposits
belonging to the IVc building. One context (Excavation Unit: CGT) revealed two gray
ware pieces that were impressed with decorations. All of the gray ware sherds contain
small-sized mica, organic and sand inclusions that are dispersed in regularly occurring to
abundant amounts. Five of the sherds have single-colored (dark gray and brown)
surfaces and the other two have three-layered fractures (brown-gray-brown) and a
moderate hardness and non-porous surfaces. Four of the pieces have mica gloss and two
of the gray ware sherds are burnished. All of the pieces are slipped but none of the
surfaces are bright or preserved well. The surface colors ranges between gray to brown
129
with regular distribution. Six out of the seven gray ware examples have impressed
decorations.
There are two base and one body sherd fragments, which belong to the coarse ware
category. These are partly burnt pieces that are brown in color and have unburnished
surfaces. They all have medium-sized inclusions that contain mica, organic material,
sand, and small grits. One of the coarse ware pieces was found on the floor of Building
15, whereas the other two came from O11 in front of its western section. The single body
sherd has impressed decorations on it, similar to those seen on gray ware sherds.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
The average size of the sherds is relatively small. Most of the sherds cover an area of
four to 21 cm2. Only 16 sherds are bigger than 50 cm2. The preserved height of the
vessels is generally low with 86 examples that are less than 3 cm and 96 that are between
3-5 cm in height. Only 34 pieces reach more than 5 cm in height and therefore provide
us with better information concerning the original vessel shapes.
3.2. Wall Thickness
Out of 215 measured pieces, 98 have thin walls (between 2-4 mm), 113 have walls
measuring between 5-10 mm and only three have a thickness that is more than 10 mm.
Among 110 RSBW rim sherds, 55 have a thickness value that is between 2-4 mm, 54
measure between 5-10 mm and one fragment is over 10 mm in thickness. In general, half
of the vessels have thin walls and the other half have relatively thicker walls that
nevertheless do not exceed 9 mm in thickness. The walls of for gray ware sherds range
between 3 and 5 mm.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Among 115 rim sherds, 102 fragments are included in the form analysis. The rest of the
material was too small in size to determine the vessel shape. In this phase the jars are
more numerous than the bowls. In total, 60 jar fragments were identified from this phase.
Jars with vertical necks (n=9), jars with everted necks (n=30) and jars without necks
(n=19) alone constitute more than half of the whole assemblage (Pl. 19). Two short-
necked jars are also present. Since most of the material consisted of rim sherds it was not
possible to measure the height of the jars. Bowls are dominated by the convex-profiled
130
examples (n=22), while bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles only number 15 (Pl. 18.1-18.9).
Both jars and bowls have similar wall thicknesses, ranging mainly between 4-8 cm.
3.4. Rims
There are three main types of rim shapes that frequently appear in this phase, they
include everted (%41), simple (%39) and flattened (%19). There is only one example of
a sharply everted type. Rim diameters range from 8 to 29 cm but most of the vessels
have rim diameters between 13 and 16 cm. Values exceeding 24 cm are rare. Flattened
rims appear both on jars and bowls, while everted rims are usually associated with bowls
that have ‘s’-shaped profiles or then with jars with everted necks.
3.5. Bases
There are two main types of bases which occur in this phase – flat and disc bases (Pl.
20.1-20.14). Among 72 identified bases, 61 were flat and 11 were of the disc base type.
Three of the flat bases are oval in shape (Pl. 20.1). Base diameters range between 4-16
cm, but most have diameters between 8 to 11 cm. Diameters that exceed 12 cm are
extremely rare. The fact that the average vessels found in this area had less than large
diameters might indicate that the bigger vessels that were, for instance, used for storage
were not located in the excavated areas. Building upon this, if the areas excavated at N11
(buildings 15 and 16) are indeed open areas, then the unimpressive sizes of these vessels
would support this idea, since one would expect that storage facilities (like large vessels)
would rather be found in roofed structures.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
There were no handles amongst the pieces studied. However, there were 16 lugs of
various shapes. Five of them belonged to the vertical tubular lug category (Pl. 20.17,
20.18). Their width varies between 9-18 mm and their length between 12-53 mm. Single
knobs are represented with six examples, whereas double knobs with only three (Pl.
20.15, 20.22). Knobs were mostly attached horizontally to the vessel body. There are
also a few button-like circular knobs. One of these is 8 mm thin and 56 mm long. The
original shape of one of the lugs could not be identified.
3.7. Decoration
Fifteen body sherds bear decorations, of which impressions are the dominant type (Pl.
21.1-21.6). Only one sherd has plastic decorations on it that were made with a thin clay
131
line which forms a zig-zag pattern (Pl. 21.7). Other sherds have impressions on them that
were generally applied irregularly and intensively on the surface, resulting in either half
circles, crescent-like or tear-drop shapes.
Six impressed fragments are RSBW, one is a coarse ware body sherd and the rest are
gray ware vessels. In one context from O11 (Excavation Code: CGT) there were four
decorated pieces found. Three of these pieces are impressed and one has plastic
decoration. However, the impressed pieces do not belong to the same vessel.
132
E. Layer IVd
1. Description of the phase
The excavations that took place at N11a in the fall of 2001, under the direction of Atilla
Batmaz, revealed archaeological material from this phase for the first time ever. Phase
IVd is a building phase that was identified at N11 below the floor levels of Buildings 15
and 16 (218.42 m). These floor levels were left unexcavated in the previous season. The
excavation of this building phase had to be carried out in a limited area of the grid.
This phase is distinguished by a fine, whitish, dust-like, soft, textured surface, which is
identified as the “IVd Floor” (Fig. 4.13). This floor was uncovered at an elevation of
218.22 m and has no evidence of
plastering. The remains of the floor
could be exposed in several areas of
the grid (except for at the northern part
of N11a) where they were revealed to
have only partially stayed intact. There
are no other architectural features
associated with this particular floor. The 2002 excavations revealed more
areas characterized by the same floor
described above. In grid N11b, IVb (Building 3) and IVc remains were removed in order
to compare the earlier deposits from this area with the results from the previous season.
The archaeological material revealed during this excavation is as diverse as the material
Figure 4.15: Grinding stones recovered on the floor (N11b).
Figure 4.13: On the left, the white surface identified as the floor. Found at 218.22 m in 2001. Figure 4.14: On the right, the stone foundations found at 218.10 m in 2002 (N11b).
133
from the previous phases. A group of four polished axes and some grinding stones were
recovered on the “IVd floor” (218.21 m), which has, as in other parts of the trench, a
whitish color and a fine dust-like composition (Fig. 4.15). Pottery, animal bones, shells,
stone tools, bone tools, sling missiles, and grinding instruments make up the IVd
assemblage from N11. The only architectural feature from this phase is a three-rowed
stone foundation that was uncovered at 218.10 m. The stone foundations reach one
meter in length and have a 35 cm width (Fig. 4.14). Some of the stones belonging to
these foundations were specifically set down to create a quadrangular shape.
Although rich in small finds, the whole phase is represented only by fragments of a floor
and the stone foundations. These two major features probably belong to the same
stratigraphical level but actually do not connect with one another. The limited area of the
excavation and the bad preservation of the architectural remains limit our understanding
of this earlier building phase. Likewise, it can not be inferred whether this building phase
is observable throughout the mound. At Trench L13, where earlier phases have also been
excavated, one can identify several phases that appear under the IVb settlement, however
the stratigraphical connection between N11 and L13 can not be established. Therefore,
one can only speculate as to which phases from these two trenches correspond to each
other.
In total, 131 diagnostic sherds that were collected from this level were analyzed. These
are 84 rim sherds, 36 bases, six handles/lugs, four decorated body sherds, and one
pierced sherd.41
2. Fabric
The RSBW dominate the assemblage at 97% (n=125). Eighty-eight percent of all RSBW
is assigned to RSBW-org while only 12% belong to RSBW-min. Gray ware is only
represented with two examples. One interesting piece from this phase is a body sherd
with red paint, which is identified as red-on-cream ware. There is one piece of CSBW
and another whose fabric could not be identified.
The non-plastic inclusions for these pieces are dominated by mica, sand and organic
material (n=76). Small grits are observed occasionally and lime appears much less
frequently. The majority of the sherds have small-sized inclusions (69%) and medium-
sized inclusions nearly make up the rest of the assemblage. The majority of the sherds 41 Analyzed excavation codes from this phase are CHS, CJH, CPO, CPR, CRS, CRU, and DBV.
134
have regularly occuring amounts of inclusions, although sherds that contain abundant
amounts of inclusions also appear with some frequency.
Most of the sherds display a single-colored fracture (n=105), with dark gray (n=29), gray
(n=24) or brown (n=29) being the most frequently observed core colors. Totally black
(n=8) or orange (n=8) cores also appear occasionally. Three or two-layered cores are
seen less frequently, appearing in 22 examples. The three-layered composition of brown-
dark gray-brown appears the most and there are three pieces with multi-colored
fractures. The majority of the sherds have moderate to hard structures and badly fired
sherds are extremely rare. Around 35 examples have fine-porous surfaces, however the
rest are completely non-porous.
All of the sherds are slipped. In most of the cases slip covers the whole surface.
Burnishing occurs on almost every sherd, except for four pieces. Some examples have
vertical burnishing tool marks and even more rare, are horizontal burnishing marks. Two
of these four unburnished pieces are gray wares, another is cream-slipped and the last is
a red-slipped ware. The surfaces of all the sherds are either bright (n=85) or very bright
(n=32), whereas non-bright examples are represented with only 13 pieces. Thirty-eight
sherds have mica gloss on them and mottled surfaces are rare for all the pieces. On three
sherds there are holes present which were drilled after the pieces were fired.
Surface colors are dominated by red (n=65), dark red (n=10) and orange (n=28) tones.
There are few examples with black (n=2), dark gray (n=1) and light brown (n=5) colors.
Gray ware examples are either gray or dark gray. Red-on-cream and cream-slipped
examples both have light brown surfaces. The color is usually distributed unevenly over
the surfaces, although evenly distributed surface colors make up almost half of the
assemblage.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
Sherds from this phase are generally small in size. More than half of the assemblage
measures between 3-15 cm2, with 37 of them being less than 10 cm2. There are ten
sherds with sizes over 30 cm2. Small sherd sizes indicate bad preservation, this is further
supported by the poor preservation of the other associated archaeological remains.
135
3.2. Wall Thickness The fineness of the pottery of IVd can best be understood with the wall thickness values.
Nearly half of the assemblage (n=54) have wall thicknesses between 3-4 mm and 61 of
them have a value between 5-7 mm, which in general speaks for the fine appearence of
the vessels. Forty-threerim sherds have thickness between 3-4 mm. Only five of them
exceed 7 mm thickness. The thinness of the vessel walls might be an another reason why
the vessels did not preserve well in this phase.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Vessel forms from this phase show a certain variety, although there are several
predominant shapes like jars with everted necks (n=17), jars without necks (n=13) and
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=18). Jars are represented with 37 examples (Pl. 22.1-
22.10), whereas bowls appear with only 25 examples (Pl. 23.1-23.11). Among the jars
are medium to large-sized examples, made evident by the number of large rim diameters
that are around 20 cm wide. Two of the jars with everted necks have strap handles (Pl.
22.1, 22.2), one is positioned horizontally and the other vertically. Another of the vessels
seems to have been used as a sieve (the only cream-slipped example). This piece has
thirteen holes on which are pierced 2-3 cm beneath the rim area. None of the rim sherds
found have decorations. Five of the bowls with ‘s’-shaped profile and four of the jars
have vertical or horizontal burnishing traces on them. It is worth mentioning that careful
burnishing, which resulted in very bright surfaces among bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles
and bowls with convex profiles, is present.
3.4. Rims
As usual rim types are dominated by three types: simple, everted and flattened. Simple
rims make up the largest percentage, with 33 examples. Everted rims are represented
with 29 pieces and there are 20 examples of flattened rims. Most of the bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles have an everted rim. Flattened rims, on the other hand, seem to be more
associated with jars with everted necks or jars without necks than with the bowls. Most
rim diameters range between 12-14 cm and the smallest value found for a rim is 6 cm,
while the largest is 24 cm. The rim fragments are mostly small. Some examples are so
small that their diameters could not be measured.
136
3.5. Bases
There are two types of base types which occur in this phase: flat and disc (Pl. 23.12-
23.15). Flat bases dominate with 27 examples and disc bases are represented with nine
pieces. Base diameters vary between 8-12 cm. There is no correlation between the base
type and the diameter. There are two oval flat bases from grid N11. As usual the bases
are better preserved than the rim sherds. The small diameter of the bases points to the
presence of smaller vessel sizes in this phase as compared to IVb.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
There are only six lugs and two strap handles that were found. Five of these lugs are
vertical tubular lugs (Pl. 23.17), and one of them is a knob (Pl. 23.16). All of them are
found on RSBW fragments. Three of the tubular lugs come from the CPR feature. This
feature is one of the best IVd contexts in N11b and is associated with a variety of finds
like animal bones, obsidian, flint tools, and shells. The other two tubular lugs also stem
from an interesting context (CJH), where many solenidae shells were found. It is
difficult to say whether there is a relation between the sherds and the shells.
The sizes of the lugs varies. There are two tubular lug examples which measure 11 x 37
mm. The first is 21 mm wide and 37 mm long, and the second is 17 mm wide and 44
mm long. Lastly, the knob is 15 mm wide and 35 mm long.
3.7. Decoration
There are four body sherds that have decorations on them. Three of them are impressed
and one is painted (Pl. 23.18, 23.19). Two of them, one impressed and one painted, were
found on the IVd floor in N11b (CPO). This floor revealed a pottery assemblage that
consists of many rims and bright, well-preserved pieces, as well as other archaeological
material like animal bones, flint and obsidian tools, bone tools, and shells.
The one painted sherd found in Phase IVd is red on cream painted (Pl. 23.19). Its size is
around 10cm2. The motif visible on the piece’s bright surface is a “V.” Its background is
light brown-cream colored, and it is slipped and burnished. Mica gloss is visible on the
surface. It is interesting to note that painted sherds continue to appear at this level, but
apparently only in extremely small quantities.
137
F. Layer IVe
1. Description of the phase
Archaeological deposits belonging to IVe were excavated in various parts of trench N11
in 2001 (N11a), 2002 (N11a,b) and 2004 (N11c,d) by Atilla Batmaz and Fulya
Dedeoğlu. In 2001, after the remains from the upper phase (IVd) were removed, a new
phase was defined as soon as the new floor was met in grid N11a. The soil which stood
above the surface of the floor was moist and clayey. The floor itself was identified at
218.13 m.
In the following year the excavations were carried out mainly at two grids, N11a and
N11b. The IVe floor was uncovered again in different areas and at different levels
(218.07, 218.00, 217.79 m). The floor here was white-colored and plastered. The plaster
was roughly 0.5 cm thick and the whole floor was two centimeters thick. A very hard,
green-colored, clayey debris was observed at some locations beneath this floor. In other
parts, a burnt, dark yellowish soil was uncovered under the floor. The IVe floor also
appeared below the stone foundations of IVd in N11b and was visible on both sides of
the wall there (Fig. 4.16). Archaeological finds found on this floor comprise of pottery,
animal bones, stone tools, sling missiles, and shells. Unfortunately, there are no
additional architectural features.
Figure 4.16: White plastered surface of Phase IVe at 218.00 m. Stone foundations from the upper phase are cutting the plastered surface.
138
Finally, in 2004, a short-term excavation was conducted in grids N11 c-d to test the
results from the previous years. A yellow-brown colored deposit, which contained mud-
brick fragments, was identified as “IVe” at 217.90-217.85 m. However. the floor that
might have existed under this deposit was left unexcavated.
In total, 167 diagnostic pieces were analyzed from this phase. These are 92 rim sherds,
61 bases, nine handles/lugs, and five decorated body sherds.42
2. Fabric
As a rule, RSBW dominates the ceramic assemblage from this phase making up 95%
(n=159) of the collection. Ninety-four percent (149/159) of RSBW belong to the organic
tempered variant. CSBW (n=3), gray ware (n=2) and coarse ware (n=1) appear in
extremely small quantities. Some of the red-slipped pieces are worn-out, cracked, sooted,
or covered with a layer of minerals.
There are a variety of non-plastic inclusions. However, the most frequently appearing
combination is organic, mica and sand, which was observed in 113 cores. Mica, sand,
organic, and grits appear together in 25 examples. Lime is present only in three pieces.
Fabrics that have only sand and mica as inclusions number only six. Fourteen among 92
rim sherds and 22 of 61 bases contain small grits in their pastes. Organic inclusions
almost appear in every sample, except 17 that contained sand, mica or small grit. It
seems like the paste used for different parts of the body was homogeneous. In the pastes
there are 62% small, 35% medium and 3% large-sized inclusions. More than half of the
assemblage includes regularly occurring amounts of inclusions in the paste. Fifty-three
sherds are densely tempered and ten pieces have relatively few inclusion particles.
The majority of the cores show single colors like dark gray, brown, dark brown, or then,
rarely, orange. The amount of dark gray-colored cores is caused by the relatively large
amount of organic material included in the fabric. There are 122 (73%) single-colored
fractures. Two (7%) or three-layered (15%) fractures, such as brown-dark gray-brown
composition, appear in smaller numbers. There is no meaningful correlation that can be
made between the body part and the fracture properties. Most of the sherds (n=134) are
moderately hard. Only 25 examples can be defined as hard and seven as “low fired.”
Ninety-two out of 167 pieces have non-porous surfaces while 72 can be called fine-
42 The following excavation codes were analyzed as part of Layer IVe: CGI, CJI, CRT, CUC, CSJ, CSZ, CTJ, CTK, and DIU.
139
porous. The latter are named as such because their fine pores were left by the organic
material that was on their surfaces.
The majortiy of the pieces are
slipped but some (n=30) are
slipped only on the outside.
Burnishing can also be observed
on almost every sherd. One
hundred and thirty-eight sherds
have bright surfaces, ten have very
bright surfaces and 19 have non-
bright outer surfaces. Fifty-six
sherds have mica glimmer on them and seven sherds show traces of burnishing that is, in
most cases, vertical. There are a few pieces (n=8) that are sooted either on the outside or
inside. Many base fragments that partially lost their slips are worn-out or cracked.
Mottled examples are few. As usual, surface colors are dominated by red (n=89) and
orange (n=29), while brown (n=18) also occurs. Coarse ware is dark gray. Both gray
ware sherds are gray-colored (Tab. 4.3). Three cream-slipped wares are cream and light
brown-colored. The color is seen to be mostly irregularly distributed over the surfaces
(n=102).
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
The majority of the samples are small to medium-sized. Seventy-three of them are less
than 10cm2, 57 are between 10-20 cm2 and 30 are between 21-40 cm2. There are only
seven sherds that are bigger than 40 cm2. One hundred and thirty-one sherds have
heights less than 4 cm. There is also not a single whole profile in the assemblage. All
these figures point to the fact that the ceramic preservation is not optimal.
3.2. Wall Thickness
Eighty-three pieces have wall thicknesses between 2 to 4 mm. Sixty-one pieces are 5-6
mm and 21 samples are 7-9 mm thick. Almost half of all rim sherds (n=83) are 2-4 mm
thick. At 9 mm thick, a neckless jar is the thickest example in the assemblage. Usually
Ware/Surface color (IVe) RSBW CSBW Gray Ware Other
Red 62 - - - Brown 13 - - - Orange 18 - - -
Dark Red 8 - - - Gray 1 - 1 -
Light Brown 3 1 - - Cream - 1 - 2 Other 2 - - 1
Table 4.3: Relationship between ware groups and surface colors (IVe)
140
the bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles tend to have thinner walls than other ceramic shapes;
one of them is even 2 mm thin. Bowls with convex profiles have slightly thicker walls
than bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles. Necked jars usually have wall thicknesses between
5-7 mm. However, jars without necks possess the largest thickness values at around 8-9
mm.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
With 26 examples, the most frequently appearing vessel form are bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles (Pl. 24.4, 24.6, 24.7, 24.8, 24.12). Bowls with convex profiles are represented
with only 11 examples (Pl. 24.9, 24.11). In total, 37 jars are identified from this phase
(Pl. 24.1-24.3); 18 have everted necks, 15 have no necks and four have vertical necks.
Only one of the neckless jars has a vertical tubular lug preserved on it. Otherwise, no
attachments are preserved on the sherds. However, one of the neckless jars is impressed
with tear-drop shapes right under its rim. Unfortunately, we cannot infer which vessel
types tend to be decorated.
The assemblage has a balanced distribution of open and closed forms, which means it
could be evaluated as a domestic assemblage. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether these
pieces come from a single building or from a number of constructions. If we simply
consider the pieces that were found on the IVe floor in Grid N11a as one unit from one
structure (Excavation Units: CTJ, CTK), then we see that jars with everted rims and
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles dominate with five specimens each. Bowls with convex
profiles appear four times while other jars total two. Again there is nearly a balanced
presence (9/7) between closed and open vessels as is seen in the other layers. Here too,
the open vessels outnumber the jars by two. Also from the same collection area came
two red-slipped, impressed body sherds, which are both slipped on both of their sides.
This means that they definitely belong to two of the bowls.
3.4. Rims
Preservation of the rim sections is very low in this phase; generally at only 10% or less.
The rim sorts that occur in this assemblage are everted (n=44), simple (n=27) and
flattened (n=21). It is observed that there is a correlation between everted rims and bowls
with ‘s’-shaped profiles because in most cases they appear together. Such correlations
can also be observed between jars without necks and flattened rims; although flattened
rims do appear occasionally on other bowl or jar types. Most flattened rims are 3-5 mm
141
thick (n=15/21). Nevertheless, there is one example where the flattened area reaches 32
mm in thickness. This is probably a large neckless jar (perhaps a storage jar) that
likewise has an unusually large diameter of 30 cm. In the whole assemblage the smallest
rim diameter is 8 cm. Most of the rim measurements range between 10-15 cm, which
suggests the existence of many medium-sized vessels in the ceramics. The mean rim
diameter in this layer is 14.6 cm. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles tend to have smaller
diameters compared to bowls with convex profiles. Lastly, jars without necks have
diameters from 10 to 30 cm, whereas jars with everted necks measure from 10 to 21 cm
in diameter.
3.5. Bases
Bases are better preserved in comparison to the rims and make up an average of 20% of
the assemblage. Among the 61 bases that were processed, 38 flat, 21 disc and 2 ring
bases were identified (Pl. 25.1-25.4). Four out of 49 bases are oval in shape. One of the
oval examples belongs to the disc base category. The base diameters range between 5 to
18 cm with mean base diameters at 9.5 cm. Thirty-eight of the bases have a diameter that
is between 5-10 cm, which might point to the majority of the pieces as belonging to
small to medium-sized vessels. The diameters of disc bases range between 6-14 cm and
flat bases show very similar figures. Additionally, there is one wholly preserved flat
base. Functionally there is apparently little difference between the disc and flat base
types. Finally, there are two ring bases that have an 8 cm and an 11 cm diameter; one of
them belongs to an open vessel and the other to a closed vessel.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
There are eleven lugs in this assemblage and they include seven vertical tubular lugs,
three double knobs and one single knob (Pl. 25.5,25.6,25.7). All the knobs are
horizontally attached to the body. One of the tubular lugs belongs to coarse ware. Double
knobs are approximately 30 mm in width and 15 mm in length. Tubular lugs measure
about 15 x 30 mm and the single knob is 30 x 21 mm. There are no unusually big or
small-sized lugs, as seen to sometimes occur in other phases.
3.7. Decoration
For this layer there are five decorated body sherds and one impressed rim sherd among
the analyzed samples. Five of these pieces display impressions and the last has plastic
decorations, formed by a very thin clay strip attached horizontally to the body. This latter
142
piece and two other impressed body fragments must belong to open vessels, since they
were also slipped and burnished on the inside. One of the impressed examples has semi-
circular, irregular impressions and is slipped (possibly self-slipped) but left unburnished.
The second impressed piece belongs to a jar without a neck and is intensely impressed
with deep, vertical tear-drop shapes under the rim. The final three examples are all
RSBW with bright, slipped, orange-red colored surfaces. They have thin, horizontal,
shallow, crescentic impressions that are irregularly distributed over the surface (Pl. 25.8,
25.9). Finally, three of the decorated specimens were found on the IVe floor but during
different operations.
143
G. Layer IVf
1. Description of the phase
The building phase identified as “IVf” comprises only a damaged floor and burnt mud-
brick deposits. These features were detected in the 2001, 2002 and 2003 excavation
seasons in several parts of grids N11a and b, underneath the remains of building Phase
IVe. In 2001, in the northern parts of Grid N11a, a white-light gray-colored, ashy surface
was found approximately 20 cm under the IVe Floor. This ashy surface was found
217.90 m deep under the soft, powder-like matter of the IVe floor. It is understood that
since the IVf Floor was damaged, this surface cannot be traced throughout the excavated
area. However, inside the debris burnt animal bones and pottery were found.
In 2002, the same whitish, soft deposit was once again encountered between elevations
of 217.79-217.69 m in Area N11a. This deposit contained pottery, one loom weight and
a clay ball. In 2003, only a small part of the IVf Floor was exposed in N11b; it was then
removed in order to investigate the older remains beneath.
Analyzed material from this phase consists of 142 pieces. These are 70 rim sherds, 51
bases, 11 handles/lugs, 8 decorated body sherds, and one pierced body sherd.43 No
complete vessels exist in the analyzed assemblage.
2. Fabric
One hundred and thirty-one out of 142 fragments belong to the RSBW, which makes up
92% of the entire assemblage. The RSBW is almost completely organic-tempered
(96%). The RSBW-min makes up only 4% in the assemblage. A number of red-slipped
examples have coarser appearances than is usually seen at this site. With four examples
(4%), gray ware constitutes the second largest ware type. CSBW is represented with two
(2%) pieces and coarse ware (2%) with two examples.
Most of the sherds, including the gray and cream-slipped wares, contain organic, mica
and sand material as non-plastic inclusions (n=115). A small number have lime or other
mineral inclusions. One hundred and eleven out of 142 examples have small-sized
inclusions, whereas the rest contain medium-sized inclusions. Most pastes show
regularly occurring amounts of inclusions (69%). There are 33 sherds (24%) that have
43 The analyzed excavation codes for Layer IVf are: CGR, CHE, CKR, CIM, CYI, CUD, and DIV.
144
abundant amounts and ten that contain low amounts of inclusions. Wares other than
RSBW contain regularly occurring to abundant amounts of inclusions.
The majority of the cores (n=122) are composed of single colors. Forty-six of them are
colored dark gray, 32 brown, 11 dark brown, and 16 are gray. In total, black cores
number six and orange cores occur seven times. Fractures with two or three layers
constitute nine examples each. In most cases, three-layered cores are composed of an
orange-gray-orange combination. Wares other than RSBW usually have single-colored
(dark gray or brown) fractures.
One hundred and nine of all analyzed sherds are medium-hard. Hard examples number
29, whereas soft ones only four. Sixty-six percent of all the sherds have non-porous
surfaces whereas 32% can be identified as fine-porous. Pores on the surface are caused
by the organic substances in the paste.
All of the samples are slipped, having most of their surfaces entirely covered. Aside
from two red-slipped body sherds, which were only burnished on the inside, all of the
sherds are burnished. This includes the gray and coarse wares. One hundred examples
show bright surfaces, 28 very bright and 13 are non-bright. Two out of three coarse ware
fragments have non-bright surfaces. Likewise, two out of five gray ware pieces are also
non-bright.
One of the interesting properties of the wares from this phase is the relatively large
number of sherds that have mica glimmer on them. In total, 33 surfaces have mica gloss.
Among these three belong to gray ware and one to a coarse ware fragment. Eight
examples have sooted areas on them, be it on their inside or on their outside. Mottled
pieces number nine and a number of samples (n=7) display burnishing traces.
The RSBW in the assemblage are usually red, orange, dark red, or brown. There are a
number of examples where the outer surfaces are brown-colored and the inside is red.
Such differences in the outer and inner surface colors are most probably a consequence
of the firing process. Gray wares are either gray or black-colored. The colors are
distributed unevenly on a large number of the sherds, leaving only forty sherds with
evenly distributed colors. Coarse ware, gray ware and CSBW all have irregular color
distributions.
145
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
The preservation in this phase is not optimal. Fifty sherds have areas between 3-10 cm2
and another 57 are between 12-20 cm2. This clearly indicates that only small portions of
vessels have survived. There are 32 pieces that outsize 20 cm2 and they naturally provide
an abundance of information on the original form, the surface treatment and/or the
building techniques implemented. Only two fragments are bigger than 50 cm2. The bad
preservation can also be seen in the preserved heights of the vessels. This is exemplified
in the roughly one hundred sherds that measure between 1.3-3.9 cm in height. Only 39
pieces are higher than 4 cm.
3.2. Wall Thickness
A large number of the sherds, 69 in total, are 2-4 mm thin. Sixty are between 5-7 mm.
Only eight sherds have thicknesses between 8-10 mm. Many rim sherds (40 out of 59)
are also mostly between 2-4 mm thin. The rest are between 5-7 mm thick.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
The material from this phase is dominated by jars. Open forms, namely the deep bowls
and bowls, are observed less. Jars with short necks (n=10), jars with vertical necks (n=3),
jars with everted necks (n=21), and jars without necks (n=8) are encountered frequently
(Pl. 26.1-26.13). Jars with short necks have rim diameters of between 11-16 cm. Bowls
with convex profiles (n=9) and bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=6) also occur. The
bowls have rim diameters between 7-19 cm. Additionally, there are two rim sherds that
are deep bowls with convex profiles and rim diameters that exceed 20 cm. In general, the
rim diameters indicate that the jars are indeed small to medium–sized, with large-sized
jars absent in the assemblage.
3.4. Rims
Seventy rim sherds were measured and their bad preservation is confirmed by the
relatively small portion of rim circles that have survived. Only 10% or less of the rim
segments are preserved in 46 examples. There are seven rim sherds of which were too
tiny to allow for their diameters to be measured.
There are three rim types that occur in this phase, they are: everted, simple and flattened.
Everted rims are observed on 28 pieces. Simple examples occur almost as much as the
146
everted types, with 22 examples in total. Lastly, flattened types are encountered on 20
rim sherds.
Rim diameters mostly range between 10 to 15 cm. Vessels with rim diameters that are
between 16-19 cm number 13 pieces. Rim diameters that equal or exceed 20 cm are
measured only on six pieces. The relatively small size of rims points to there being a
large number of necked jars in the assemblage.
3.5. Bases
As usual, preservation of the bases is better than what is seen for the rim sherds. There
are 51 bases that were analyzed from this phase and the majority of them (31) are flat
bases; the rest are disc bases (Pl. 26.16-26.20). There is also one ring base (Pl. 26.21).
Three flat bases belong to coarse wares and one gray and one CSBW have carinated flat
bases.
Base diameters range between 6-13 cm. Thirty of the bases measure between 6-10 cm
wide and 13 of them are 11-13 cm wide. There are four oval bases; one measures 7 cm
and the other 11 cm wide. There are four small base fragments, of which have
immeasurable diameters.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
In the assemblage there are ten vertical tubular lugs (Pl. 27.1-27.5), one pierced knob (Pl.
27.7) and one horizontally placed loop handle. All of the tubular lugs and the loop
handles are found on RSBW vessels. Some of the tubular lugs are relatively long and
two lugs have areas that measure 56 x 14 and 57 x 14 mm.
3.7. Decoration
Among eight impressed body sherds, six belong to RSBW and three to gray ware vessels
(Pl. 27.8-27.11). There is one necked jar fragment with impressions placed right on the
area where the neck is attached to the shoulders (Pl. 26.1). The impressions are
crescentic (or rather boomerang-like) and are made intensive. Unfortunately it is not
possible to see whether the impressions cover the whole vessel body.
Two of the gray ware pieces that are decorated have several horizontal crescentic
impressions, which were made irregularly across the surface. Impressions on the other
decorated examples are made with a tool that left triangular shapes. Red-slipped
specimens also show a variety of impression styles, in terms of the execution and shape
147
of their impressions. Three of them show intensive impressions all over the surface. Two
of the red-slipped impressed sherds have tear-drop impressions, plus one has half circles
and the other quasi-quadrangular impressions.
148
H. Layer IVg
1. Description of the phase
Archaeological remains belonging to IVg were exposed in the 2001, 2002 and 2003
excavation seasons by Atilla Batmaz. In 2001, as soon as the IVf floor was removed, a
dark yellow and partly black deposit of collapsed mud-bricks appeared in the excavation
area N11a. The debris was observed to be 45 cm thick. Consequently, in the northwest
corner of the excavated area two-rowed stone foundations were found under the mud-
bricks, which apparently constitute a corner of a building. Therefore, the area that is
surrounded by these walls was named Building 17 (Fig. 4.17). The collapsed mud-brick
deposits probably belong to this very structure, which for the most part remains in the
unexcavated areas. The floor that belongs to Building 17 was met at 217.45 m in the
northern part and at 217.36 m at the southern part. It is described as light brown-
yellowish in color, and is damaged and is thickly plastered. Plastering was also observed
on the body of the mud-brick wall, which only survived to a 5 cm height.
Figure 4.17: Stone foundations and area identified as Building 17 at the northwestern corner of N11a (Far Left on Picture).
149
In 2002, excavations were continued in Grids N11a-b. Burnt reddish-pink mud-bricks
were met once again beneath the IVf remains between 217.65-217.51 m deep. In the
southern part of N11a and at N11b, IVg deposits were excavated to the floor level. This
level is characterized with a yellow clayey composure (217.55-217.49 m).
Unfortunately, no other architectural feature could be exposed in these areas. In 2003,
some excavated areas from IVg in N11b were removed in order to reach the older
deposits. The material from this removal work has also been included in this analysis.
In total, 89 sherds from this phase were analyzed. These include 48 rim sherds, 26 bases,
14 handles/lugs, and one decorated body sherd.44
2. Fabric
The pottery assemblage from IVg consists of various wares including RSBW, coarse
ware, CSBW, and gray ware. The RSBW, all of them RSBW-org, as usual clearly
dominate the assemblage with 86% (n=76). Coarse ware makes up 7% of the assemblage
while the rest belong to CSBW (5%) and gray ware (2%).
Organic, mica and sand are absolutely the predominant non-plastic inclusions in this
phase. In most cases these three occur together in the paste (n=69). There are also
instances where small grit is seen together with these three components. Only three
pieces have pastes that contain solely sandy and organic material and lime is seen in only
one example. Coarse, gray and cream-slipped examples also show mostly organic, mica
and sand inclusions, which suggests that their pastes were prepared in the same way as
for the red-slipped ware. All of the inclusion particles have small to medium sizes.
Inclusions that can be classified as large do not occur in the assemblage. Sixty examples
have regularly occurring amounts of inclusions and twenty show abundant inclusion
particles. Only eight examples display few inclusions.
The majority of the sherds (n=78) have single-colored fractures that are mostly dark
gray, brown or gray-colored. Completely black, orange or dark brown fractures are
observed less frequently. Three or two-layered fractures occur in small numbers in this
phase and usually are brown-gray-brown or orange-gray-orange compositions.
The hardness of the pieces is as follows: 69 sherds are moderately hard and 18 can be
classified as hard. There is only one example that can be called soft or “low-fired”.
44 Analyzed excavation codes are: CLG, CYB, CYC, CYD, CYH, CZJ, DAS, DAV, DEG, DIN, and DJB.
150
Coarse, gray and cream-slipped examples are all medium hard. Fifty-one examples have
fine-porous surfaces and 36 have non-porous surfaces. Gray ware fragments have non-
porous surfaces. Three out of six coarse ware fragments are fine-porous.
All of the examples are slipped and for most, the slip can be seen covering both sides.
However, there are cases where the slip covers only the outer surface; these belong
apparently to restricted vessels. Burnishing is also observed on almost every sherd.
There is only one gray ware sherd that does not show any traces of burnishing. There are
also a few sherds that are covered with thin layers of salt that prevent any examination of
the surface. A great number of sherds have bright surfaces (n=62). Very bright surfaces
are seen on eight examples and non-bright surfaces are evident on 18 sherds. Four coarse
ware fragments, three cream and ten red-slipped specimens have non-bright surfaces.
One of the peculiar aspects of IVg pottery is that there are 14 sherds whose surfaces are
covered with salty material either on the inside or outside, and in some cases completely,
and sometimes only partially. There are 10 sherds that show traces of burning.
Additionally, there are 13 examples with mica gloss and nine with mottled surfaces. On
one example there are vertically-made burnishing marks.
In this phase the surface colors are diverse. RSBW are mostly red (n=28), orange (n=14),
brown (n=14) or dark red (n=11). Cream-slipped wares are all cream or light brown-
colored. Coarse wares are dark gray, cream or light brown-colored. Gray wares are either
gray or dark brown. Fifty-three out of 88 sherds display irregular color distributions.
Two pieces are entirely covered with minerals and so their original surfaces are not
visible. Coarse wares usually have irregular color distribution, whereas cream-slipped
examples are regularly distributed. Most red-slipped wares (n=48) also have irregular
color distributions on them and only 26 of them show single color on their outer
surfaces.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
The analyzed diagnostic sherds have small to medium-sizes. The majority of them
measure between 11 to 30 cm2, while nine examples are bigger than 30 cm2. The height
of the sherds also provides a good idea about the preservation in this building phase.
151
Fifty-one pieces are between 2.1-5 cm and only 22 examples are no higher than 2 cm.
Another 15 vessel fragments are slightly better preserved with heights that exceed 5 cm.
3.2. Wall Thickness
Twenty of the diagnostic sherds and 10 of the rim sherds have wall thicknesses of only 3
mm. The greater part of the assemblage has walls that are 4-5 mm thick and 18 sherds
are thicker than 5 mm. The majority of the rim sherds measure between 3-4 mm;
however, there are seven rim sherds that are thicker than 7 mm. One coarse ware rim
sherd has a 10 mm thick wall. In general, the average wall thickness in this phase is 4.6
mm and the RSBW rim sherds also average 4.5 mm thick.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Forty-one out of 47 rim sherds could be identified in terms of their forms. The vessel
shapes from this phase are not diverse and in this phase, the most frequently occurring
vessel types from other phases are also found. These are mainly bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles (Pl. 28.7, 28.8), bowls with convex profiles, jars without necks, and jars with
everted necks (Pl. 28.1-28.8). Additionally, there are two examples of short-necked jars
and one jar with a vertical neck. There are no complete vessels preserved from this
phase, therefore it is difficult to comment on the actual sizes of these vessels. There are
two jar fragments which are definitely small in size (between 6-15 cm high) and with
rim diameters that do not exceed 12 cm. There are also two seemingly large-sized jars
that do not have necks; they were probably used as storage vessels. Slip coverage of base
and lug fragments indicates that there are more restricted vessels than unrestricted types
in this building phase, but this could also be a result of sampling.
3.4. Rims
Rim sherds from this phase are usually small in size. The actual rim area, which is used
to measure the rim diameter of the vessel, is preserved from around 6 to 16% on the rim
samples. There are two rim sherds of which had rim diameter that could not be measured
due to their small sizes.
There are three rim types that are present in this phase, these are: everted, simple and
flattened. Out of 47 rim fragments, 25 are classified as everted (52%), 10 as flattened
(22%) and 13 as simple (26%). The diameters of the vessels range between 9-27 cm.
Twenty-two of all the rims measure between 10 to 15 cm, 13 of them between 16-20 cm
and only five exceed 20 cm. Both bowls and jars have diameters that are comparable in
152
size. However, there are five jar fragments that have diameters measuring between 20-27
cm.
As seen in the other phases, flattened rims are usually associated with jars without necks
and their widths vary considerably. Three examples of the flattened rims are only 3 mm
thick and another three are more than 24 mm wide (24, 30 and 31 mm respectively).
These probably belong to large-sized vessels that were used as storage units. Only one
13 mm thick flattened rim belongs to a bowl with a convex profile.
3.5. Bases
At between 16-46%, the preservation of the bases is better than the rim sherds. However,
their surfaces are pored, cracked and, in a few cases, sooted. There are two base types
that occur at IVg, these are flat (n=12) and disc (n=14) bases (Pl. 28.9-28.13). There are
four oval-shaped examples, of which three are flat. In this phase the disc bases actually
outnumber the flat ones. Whether this is an actual change in the production or only a
coincidence of the sampled pieces is unclear. There are four coarse ware bases from IVg;
two of them are the normal flat kind and the other two belong to the disc type. Among
three cream-slipped examples, two are disc and the other is flat. The base diameters
range between 6-18 cm but 21 of all bases have diameters that measure between 6-11
cm. There is only one base fragment that has an 18 cm diameter. It seems like many base
fragments belong to small to medium-sized jars.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
The IVg assemblage consists of 15 fragments of handles and lugs (Pl. 28.14-28.17).
Among them only one belongs to a horizontally placed loop handle and the rest belong
to different types of lugs. These other varieties include one double knob (15 x 22 mm),
three pierced knobs, four single knobs, and six tubular lugs. Except for one pierced knob,
the pierced and double knobs are placed horizontally. One of the pierced knobs is a
coarse ware. Two of the single knobs are circular and button-like. The other single knobs
are horizontally placed. One of them is 43 mm in length and 7 mm in width. Another
single knob is 35 m long and 6 mm wide. Like the single knobs, the vertically placed
tubular lugs are also mainly long and thin (51 x 14, 48 x 18, 41 x 11, 37 x 16, 22 x 14,
and 14 x 18 mm).
153
3.7. Decoration
There is only one decorated body sherd from this phase and it is an impressed gray ware
sherd that is 25 cm2 in size. The absence of slip and burnishing on the inside of the piece
indicate that it most probably belonged to a restricted vessel. The whole surface is
covered with horizontally made crescentic impressions, is non-porous and shows mica
glimmer. The fracture is dark brown and it has organic, mica and sandy material in the
paste. The piece was found in 2002 on the IVg Floor in N11b.
154
I. Layer IVh
1. Description of the phase
This phase is architecturally represented by Building 34, which was exposed in
September 2003 at excavation area N11a-b. The excavators point out that the IVh
deposits contain a lot of orange- brown-colored mud-brick fragments and charcoal,
which once formed the upper structure of Building 34 (Fig. 4.18). The two walls of the
building that constitute the southwest corner of Building 34 were excavated at elevations
between 217.17-217.06 m. Unfortunately, most parts of the building remain in the
unexcavated section of this and neighboring grids. The walls have three-rowed stone
foundations. Additionally, two successive floor deposits in this building were identified;
the upper one is plastered and light brown (217.11 m), whereas the lower one is made
out of beaten earth and is black-gray colored and probably burnt (216.99 m). Therefore,
the excavators have divided this building phase into two sub-phases, calling them IVh1
and IVh2. Here we will consider both of these phases together since chronologically
both belong to the same horizon.
Figure 4.18: Northwestern corner of Building 34 in Grid N11.
155
Two hundred and one diagnostic sherds from 15 excavation units belonging to Phase
IVh were analyzed. These include two complete vessels, 112 rim sherds, 58 bases, 19
handles/lugs, and 8 body sherds.45
2. Fabric
The pottery from this phase is dominated by fine RSBW, at 81% (n=162) of the
assemblage. Ninety-three percent of the RSBW is categorized as RSBW-org. The coarse
variant of RSBW (n=19) represents 9% of the collection. In this phase, coarse ware
appears within 6% (n=11) and CSBW within 10% (n=20) of the assemblage. Four
pieces of gray ware and two pieces of cream-on-red ware complete the assemblage.
There is one sherd without a surface that is classified as unidentified.
As usual, the RSBW has organic, mica and sand in its paste as non-plastic inclusions
(n=137). There are some exceptions to this as only mica and sand appear in 17 sherds
and another two examples include lime as an inclusion. Twelve sherds have small grits
in addition to organic, mica and sand inclusions. The majority of the RSBW (n=116)
have small-sized inclusions. Medium-sized inclusions are seen in 49 sherds and large-
sized inclusions are not observed at all. The amount of non-plastic inclusions is mostly
regular (n=162), however few (n=19) or abundant (n=18) amounts of inclusions have
also been recorded. Fifteen out of 18 CSBW fragments contain organic, mica and sand
inclusions in their paste. Almost all of the CSBW sherds have small-sized and regularly
occurring amounts of inclusions. Gray wares contain organic, mica, sand, and grits as
inclusions. Like the CSBW, the gray wares are mostly small in size with regularly
occurring inclusion amounts. Although they do not fit together, there are two cream-on-
red sherds that probably belong to a single vessel. Both of these pieces have small-sized
mica and sand inclusions. Finally, coarse wares also have organic, mica, sand, and small
grit inclusions that are mostly small in size and regularly occurring to abundant in their
amounts.
The majority of the fractures have single colors (n=177). Three-layered fractures only
appear on 16 pieces and they are normally composed of brown-gray-brown or orange-
dark gray-orange layers. Single-layered fractures display a variety of colors with most of
them being dark gray (n=55), gray (n=34), brown (n=35), or orange-colored (n=30).
45 Analyzed excavation codes from this phase are DEH, DEO, DEP, DFM, DFN, DFY, DFZ, DGS, DGT, DGZ, DHY, DHZ, DIO, DJY, and DJZ.
156
Only seven fractures were pitch black. Dark gray, brown and gray colors result from the
organic material in the paste.
The majority of RSBW from this phase are moderately hard. The hard examples number
41, while there are 23 soft examples. Most of the CSBW are gray ware and red-on-cream
ware and are also moderately hard, although soft and hard pieces also appear. Coarse
wares have moderate to hard structures. One hundred and twelve out of 201 sherds are
non-porous and there are 82 fine porous examples. Roughly half of the RSBW have
porous surfaces due to the pieces’ high amounts of organic material.
Almost all of the examples are slipped and burnished. The slip can be observed on both
sides. The surfaces are bright, although non-bright examples can be seen in 33 pieces.
Very bright surfaces are usually associated with the RSBW, however there are only 12
such examples. As a whole, the non-bright surfaces can appear with the RSBW, CSBW,
gray wares, and coarse wares.
One of the frequently observed properties of the sherds from this phase is that they have
heavy mica glimmer on their surfaces (n=43). Another interesting feature is the number
of sherds with differing colors for their outer and inner surfaces. There are 31 examples
that elicit this feature, which is probably a consequence of the firing atmosphere and
technique. Such specimens might have brown outer surfaces and red inner surfaces or
cream outer surfaces and orange inner surfaces. Mottled outer surfaces also appear,
although only infrequently. Surfaces that have not been well-preserved or worn-out are
also common in this assemblage, with more than 25 examples of such pieces whose
surfaces are totally or partially worn-out. There are six sherds with traces of burnishing,
three are vertical and three are horizontal.
The RSBW show a variety of surface colors that ranges from brown to dark red. The
majority have red surfaces (n=62) and there are 38 orange and 32 brown examples. The
surface color of the CSBW is either cream, light brown or then light gray. Coarse wares
are usually brown or dark brown and red-on-cream ware is light brown with red paint.
The majority of the sherds (n=132) have irregular distribution of surface color,
suggesting unstable firing atmospheres. Finally, sixty-seven sherds have single surface
colors.
157
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
Although there are many small pieces from this phase, better preserved sherds also
appear frequently. Twenty-six pieces are bigger than 30 cm2 and 32 are higher than or
equal to 5 cm. Twenty pieces are larger than 20 cm2 and 50 pieces are actually smaller or
equal to 10 cm2 in size. The bases and handles/lugs are generally better preserved than
the rim sherds. Sixty-seven sherds are shorter than 3 cm, which suggests poor
preservation. The CSBW and gray ware are the worst preserved types.
3.2. Wall Thickness
One hundred and fifteen out of 201 sherds have wall thickness between 2-4 mm; among
them, 29 are 3 mm and four are only 2 mm thick. Forty-seven examples are 5 mm, 16
are 6 mm and 11 are 7 mm thick. There are only seven pieces that have wall thickness
that exceeds 7 mm. The walls that are thicker than 10 mm are measured on three
flattened rims that belong to medium-large-sized jars. The coarse wares can be 5-8 mm
thick, gray wares 3-5 mm and the CSBW 3-6 mm. Ninety-five out of 162 RSBW
fragments have wall thickness measuring between 2-4 mm and 59 measure between 5-7
mm. Sixty-four out of 90 RSBW rim sherds have a wall thickness between 2-4 mm. The
two red-on-cream pieces are 4 mm thick. All these figures demonstrate how finely made
the vessels from this early phase are.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=28) and jars without necks (n=36) are the two vessel
types from this phase that dominate the whole assemblage (Pl. 29.1-29.12). Other vessel
forms appear less frequently but are highly varied. Among these other jar types are 12
short-necked jars, five jars with everted necks and one jar with a vertical neck. Deep
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles are also common, appearing 11 times. Among the other
bowl types are 11 bowls with convex profiles and 3 bowls with straight profiles. There
are also three sieves (Pl. 29.14, 29.15) and one possible lid in the recorded examples.
The ratio of closed shapes to open shapes is almost equal. There are two possible large-
sized vessels with rim diameters that exceed 26 cm. These can be functionally classified
as storage jars. The other vessels are small to medium-sized.
158
Two complete vessels from this phase are displayed in İzmir History Museum. One of
them (Excavation Unit: DGZ 14260) is a small-sized jar with a short neck and four short
tubular lugs on its shoulder (Pl. 29.2). It was found directly on the floor of Building 34 in
pieces, at 217.11 m deep. The height of the vessel is 6.8 cm and the rim is everted,
measuring only 5 cm in diameter. The flat base is only 2.8 cm in diameter. The vessel
has cracks on its surface, which is burnished and slipped with a red color. However, the
piece does not have a fine ware appearance. Organic material, mica and sand can be
identified as the non-plastic inclusions.
The other vessel is the only complete one from Ulucak that has impressed decorations on
it (Excavation Unit: DHY 14061; Pl. 29.1). It was also found in a fragmentary state
inside Building 34 and close to the eastern wall section, at 217.11 m deep. The vessel is
a medium-sized jar with a short neck, a slight ‘s’-shaped profile and four knobs. It has a
height of 16 cm and a rim diameter of 13 cm. The piece has organic, mica, sand, and
small grits as inclusions. Furthermore, it is slipped and burnished on the outside and has
a brownish red surface that is mottled and partly sooted. Since the sooted areas are below
the belly, it is suggested that this vessel was used for cooking on a fire. The fact that the
paste includes small grits might also support this suggestion. Additionally, there are
traces of burnt areas inside the vessel. The impressions appear almost all over the vessel,
excluding the neck and rim areas, and are shallow, irregular and mostly in rounded or
tear-drop shapes. The impressions were made after burnishing. Finally, the base is a disc
type and the four knobs on the piece are not pierced.
3.4. Rims
There are three types of rims that occur in this assemblage, these are simple, everted and
flattened. The most frequently appearing type is the everted rim (n=64). As usual,
flattened rims (n=11) are associated with jars without necks. Such jars constitute the
thickest rim sherds, which form orifices that are wider than 16 cm. Simple and everted
rims are seen on jars, deep bowls and bowls. Their rim diameters range from 5 to 28 cm.
The majority of the vessels have rim diameters that measure between 11 to 17 cm.
Usually, the jars have rims that measure between 10-16 cm in diameter, although values
around 20 also occur. The deep bowls have wide orifices measuring between 20-28 cm.
Finally, the bowls are similar to jars because they mostly have rim diameters between
10-16 cm. For the entire assemblage, the average rim diameter is 15.4 cm.
159
3.5. Bases
There are sixty base fragments from this phase, four of them are complete and at least 15
belong to open vessels. Except for three oval bases, all bases are round in shape. Disc
bases dominate the assemblage with 49 pieces (Pl. 30.1, 30.2) and flat bases are seen on
11 base fragments. The diameters for the bases mainly vary between 8-10 cm. There is
one flat base with a diameter of 24 cm that must have been a large-sized vessel. It
probably belonged to one of the vessels with a flattened rim that had a big diameter.
Other than that, the bases seem to belong to small-medium-sized vessels.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
There are 20 lugs and one handle from this phase. The one handle fragment is classified
as a horizontally placed loop handle and seems to belong to a relatively large-sized
vessel. It is 47 mm wide and 21 mm in length, and incomplete. The rest of the
assemblage is composed of various lugs and knobs (Pl. 30.4 and Pl. 30.5). Fifteen out of
19 lugs are vertically placed tubular lugs and then there are 3 knobs and two double
knobs. The tubular lugs vary in size, with their widths between 10-20 mm and their
lengths ranging from 27-60 mm. This means there are unusually thin and long tubular
lugs from this phase.
One of the complete vessels has four vertically placed tubular lugs on its shoulder (Pl.
29.2). These lugs are small, measuring 10 x 8 mm. There are also three vessels with
horizontally placed knobs and one body sherd with one double knob. Four knobs are
seen on the impressed vessel (Excavation Unit: DHY 14061). The knobs that are on the
impressed jar are 16 x 10 mm and the other knobs measure 24 x 13 and 21 x 10 mm.
Almost all lugs and knobs appear on the RSBW vessels.
3.7. Decoration
There are nine vessels and body sherds that have decorations on them; there is one
plastic decorated body sherd, two painted sherds, five impressed body sherds, and one
complete jar with impressions. The piece with the plastic decorations has two thin bands
that run parallel along its outer surface (Pl. 30.8). Due to the small size of this sherd
(only 9cm2), it is impossible to infer what the original design was like.
160
The two painted body sherds seem to
stem from the identical vessel (Fig.
4.19). These pieces have brown-orange
surfaces with cream-colored paint. On
one of them, two separate bands can be
observed running to form a “V”-shape.
The other one has only one band
partially preserved on its corner.
Of the five impressed sherds, three are
gray ware and two are RSBW. The impressions upon them are usually irregular, shallow
and not concentrated and appear in the shapes of tear-drops, triangles, nail impressions,
and semi-circles (Pl. 30.6, 30.7). All impressions were made using a tool or finger tip
when the vessel was still leather hard. As mentioned above, there is also one completely
intact jar that also has impressions.
Figure 4.19: Decorated body fragments from Phase IVh.
161
J. Layer IVi
1. Description of the phase
Layer IVi is a building phase excavated in September 2003 by Fulya Dedeoğlu. It is
located in Grid N11a-b, in the space located between Buildings 17 and 34 of building
phases IVg and IVh. The deposit that was exposed under the building Phase IVh is
described as green-gray-colored and clayey. A badly preserved, yellow-colored, 3-4 cm
thick plastered floor, which contained sunken grinding stones and damaged hearths,
appeared under this deposit at 216.71-216.69 m deep. One posthole is also identified in
the central part of the excavated area and is associated with the floor. The excavator
points out that this building was heavily damaged by the younger structures that were
built directly on top of it. Because the remains of a floor and a posthole could be
identified in connection to one another, this area was named as Building 35 (Fig. 4.20).
The walls and other architectural elements that might belong to this phase probably
remain under the deposits of upper phases, which were not removed. Therefore, only a
very small area, designated as Phase IVi, could be excavated. The finds are restricted to
animal bones, lithics and pottery.
To the south of the excavated area a concentration of charred grains were found. The
archaeobotanical analysis conducted by Megaloudi (2005: 28) upon samples retrieved
from this area revealed that three acorns (Quercus sp.) are present in the sample. A
Figure 4.20: Area identified as IVi between Buildings 17 and 34 in Grid N11.
162
carbon date (Beta-188371) from the same concentration provided the result of
7110±40BP (6030-5895 cal. BCE).
The restricted size of the excavation area resulted in the collection of only a small
number of pottery from this single building phase. Moreover, in this area there is the
high possibility of contamination from other phases as it is difficult to distinguish the
deposits belonging to phases IVh, IVi and IVk with high security. In total, 52 sherds are
analyzed from IVi. The assemblage is too small to treat it in a scientifically meaningful
way, but it does provide an impression of the general characteristics of the pottery from
this phase. However, the total percentages of types and pieces, the existence of certain
wares or abundance of certain wares and the form types will reflect a misleading picture
when compared to other phases. For this reason, the quantitative results from this phase
should be evaluated carefully. The assemblage consists of 26 rim sherds, four lugs, five
body sherds, and 17 bases. There are no complete vessels recovered from this phase.46
2. Fabric
Forty sherds could be assigned to the fine RSBW (ca. 70%) and five pieces were
classified as coarse RSBW (%10). All the RSBW belongs to the RSBW-org variant of
this ware group. There are eight CSBW, two cream-on-red and one red-on-cream ware
pieces from this phase. The number of painted wares is huge compared to the small size
of the assemblage. Two cream-on-red sherds probably stem from one common vessel.
Although they do not connect to one another, their inclusions, surface characteristics and
color of paint indicate that they once belonged to the same vessel. It is interesting that no
coarse or gray wares appear in the assemblage, but this might again be linked to the
small sample size.
The majority of the sherds have organic, mica and sand as non-plastic inclusions. Eight
examples have small grit in addition to these inclusions. Only one sherd does not contain
organic material as an inclusion. Thirty-four out of 52 examples have small-sized
inclusions, while the rest contain medium-sized inclusions in their pastes. The amount of
inclusions is mainly regular (n=35). Few inclusions are seen only on four examples and
abundant amounts of inclusions occur in 13 pieces. There does not seem to be a strong
relationship between the ware and non-plastic inclusions. It is worth noting that CSBW
contains, almost as a rule, small-sized inclusions. The RSBW can have both small and
46 Analyzed excavation codes from this layer are: DLL, DLM, DNC, and DND.
163
medium-sized inclusions. The only red-on-cream ware piece has small-sized inclusions
that are made out of sand and mica. Cream-on-red pieces have medium-sized inclusions
that include organic, mica, sand, and small grits.
Forty-three of 52 sherds have single-colored fractures, eight examples are three-layered
and only one sherd has two-layered fractures. In most cases, the CSBW display single-
colored fractures which are gray or brown. The RSBW has a variety of fracture colors
that range from orange to gray and from brown to dark gray. A number of the RSBW
fractures have three-layered fractures, which are mostly orange-gray-orange. Cream-on-
red pieces have brown single-layered fractures and the one red-on-cream piece has a
three-layered fracture that is composed of orange-gray-orange layers.
Most of the sherds are moderately hard (n=43) but there are seven hard examples and
two soft sherds. The CSBW are in every case moderately fired. Hard examples belong to
the RSBW and cream-on-red ware. Thirty-seven out of 52 pieces have non-porous
surfaces, although fine porous examples also occur frequently (n=25).
All of the sherds from this phase are slipped and burnished. In almost every case, the slip
covers both the inner and outer surfaces. Pieces with differing colors of outer and inner
surfaces appear frequently. As a whole, there are various surface colors that appear in
this phase but the dominating colors are brown (n=11), red (n=12), orange (n=18), and
cream (n=5). There are also light brown, dark gray and dark red surfaces. Thirty-five out
of 52 sherds have irregularly distributed outer surface colors. The surfaces are bright
(n=47), with non-bright surfaces only seen on two RSBW pieces. There are three very
bright surfaces, one on a CSBW and two on RSBW sherds. Thirteen pieces have mica
glimmer on their surfaces; seven of these are observed on base fragments. These base
fragments are from red-on-cream ware, RSBW and CSBW. Mottled surfaces occur only
rarely. Lastly, there are five pieces with traces of burnishing on them; three of them are
vertical and two of them are horizontally made.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
There are 22 pieces that are bigger than 20 cm2. Five pieces measure more than 50 cm2.
On the other hand, there are 11 examples that are smaller than 10 cm2. On average the
area of the pieces is roughly 24 cm2. The preservation of the sherds is surprisingly above
164
average, with the heights of the analyzed sherds ranging between 1.7 to 9 cm and
averaging 4.1 cm.
3.2. Wall Thickness
Pottery from this phase is exceptionally fine. The thinnest walls measure 3 mm, while
the thickest value is only 7 mm. The mean wall thickness is only 4 mm. Thirty-six out of
52 sherds have a wall thickness of 3-4 mm and only six sherds are 6-7 mm thick.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
The vessels from this phase display the
usual variety of shapes (Pl. 31.1-31.4).
The most frequently occurring vessel
types are bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles (n=9) and jars without necks
(n=8). Jars with vertical and everted
necks appear to a lesser extent. Two
bowls with convex profiles, one deep
bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile, one
short-necked jar, and one sieve
complete the assemblage. The CSBW is seen with two bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles,
one jar without a neck and one deep bowl. The rim sherd identified as a sieve is red-
slipped and belongs to a burnished bowl that has a convex profile. The piece has 11
holes on its body, which were pierced from the inside before firing. One of the jars
without a neck is painted with a cream color on its mouth area; the paint is in the shape
of an upside down “V” (Fig. 4.21; Pl. 31.1). One of the bowls with a ‘s’-shaped profile
has reddish brown-colored paint on its lip. It reveals a 15 mm thick horizontal band and
three thinner vertical bands coming out of it towards the body.
3.4. Rims
Everted (n=14), simple (n=9) and flattened (n=3) rims are the three rim types that appear
in the assemblage. As in upper phases, everted and simple rims dominate the
assemblage. As usual, flattened rims are clearly associated with jars without necks.
However, all of the rims are only 3 mm thick. Rim diameters range between 10 to 24 cm
and many are between 12-16 cm. At 22cm, the cream-on-red painted jar has one of the
biggest rim diameters. The size of the vessels as judged by the rim diameters, whether
Figure 4.21: Typical RSBW and painted fragments from Phase IVi.
165
bowls or jars, is small to medium. The large-sized vessels that can be described as
“storage vessels” are not observed in this assemblage.
3.5. Bases
There are 17 bases from this phase, of which three were preserved completely. At least
five of the bases originate from unrestricted vessels. There are only two types of bases
present, flat and disc; although there is only one flat base in the analyzed examples. The
base diameters range between 6-10 cm, again indicating the relatively small size of the
vessels. One of the cream-slipped carinated bases is 8 mm high, which is unusual when
compared to other disc bases. Finally, the dominating nature of carinated bases from this
phase is worth emphasizing (Pl. 31.5, 31.6).
3.6. Handles and Lugs
There are only four lugs inside the analyzed pieces. The first two are pierced knobs that
seem to stem from the same vessel. Their shape and size are very similar, measuring 16
x 32 and 16 x 24 mm. The third lug from this phase is tubular and unusually long and
thin, measuring 70 x 13 mm (Pl. 31.7). The last lug is a single button-like, circular knob.
It measures 11 x 18 mm and is found on a dark red-slipped and burnished body sherd
that has impressions on it.
3.7. Decoration
There are seven sherds with decorations. One is an RSBW rim sherd and has plastic
decorations that are vertically placed as a thin band on the neck (32 x 4 mm). One red-
on-cream, painted bowl rim sherd also appears in the assemblage. It has one thick
horizontal band circumnavigating the rim and three equidistant thin bands running
perpendicular to the horizontal band, along the body of the vessel (Pl. 31.8).
One cream-on-red painted rim sherd has an upside down “V” on its shoulders, which
begins immediately under the rim. The two bands that form the “V” shape are 10 mm
wide and applied with a brush-like instrument with little care. Although the surface is
red, bright and well-burnished, the paint is cream-colored and matte. It is noted that the
paint was applied after the burnishing process because the paint has a rough surface but
it is not clear whether the paint was applied after the firing. The other cream-on-red
painted body sherd has two unconnected bands, one running horizontally and the other
diagonally (Pl. 31.9). These two bands might have formed a “V” shape, but it is not
166
clear. One of the bands is 8 mm wide, while the other is incomplete. The two cream-on-
red sherds might belong to the same vessel, however this is not certain.
Additionally, there are three impressed body sherds. All of them are red-slipped and
burnished and two of them have bright surfaces. Two pieces also have mica glimmer on
them. The impressions are irregular, shallow and appear as semi-circles and thin, shallow
scratch-like lines (Pl. 31.10).
167
K. Layer IVk
1. Description of the phase
Building Phase IVk constitutes the earliest building phase of Level IV. The architectural
remains from this phase were discovered in the fall of 2003 through the excavations
carried out at Grid N11b by Fulya Dedeoğlu. This phase was exposed directly under the
archaeological deposits of the subsequent building phases – IVh and IVi.
The deposit for this phase is gray-white in color and ashy. The accumulation is relatively
thin and the remains are very damaged. However, the well-preserved stone foundations
of Building 36 were excavated in Grid N11b. In terms of its building technique, Building
36 is one of the most interesting buildings at Neolithic Ulucak (Fig. 4.22). The stone
foundations are relatively thick and are formed by three rows of rounded stones that
measure 20-30 cm in diameter. This contrasts the single rows of small-sized stone
foundations of the upper levels. The western and southern walls of the building join into
a rounded corner at 216.38 m. This is another architectural feature that was not observed
in the upper building phases, which have sharp corners. Unfortunately, evidence from
the super-structure is lacking. However, the rounded corners might indicate that the
Figure 4.22: Thick stone foundations and stone pavement of Building 36.
168
walls were not constructed out of rectangular mud-bricks but rather from mud. On the
other hand, postholes located between the stone foundations were not found. Had there
been evidence for postholes this would have suggested that the building technique used
for the walls was wattle-and-daub.
Another interesting and unique feature about this building is its interior pavement, which
is made out of small to medium-sized pebbles that measure 10-20 cm in diameter. This
pavement was subsequently covered with a thin plaster (0.3 cm). Such a floor treatment
is observed neither in the later nor in the earlier buildings. Additionally, pottery, bones,
lithics, a number of ground stone fragments, and pestles were discovered on the paved
floor, at a depth of 216.73-216.69 m. No additional inner architectural features were
found in this building.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to reconstruct the original house plan, since it could only
be excavated in a restricted area. The stone foundations are seen continuing under the
overlying deposits and into the unexcavated sections of this grid. Nevertheless, rounded
corners and paved floor are obvious signs for a change in the architectural techniques
that were utilized at Ulucak.
There were 140 diagnostic sherds that were collected from this phase.47 There is
possibility of contamination from building deposits IVh and IVi. All together, the
assemblage contains 75 rim sherds, 12 decorated body sherds, 48 base fragments, four
lugs, and one special form. No complete vessels were recovered from this phase.
2. Fabric
Almost 90% of the whole assemblage is
formed by two types of wares – RSBW
(74%) and CSBW (15%) (Fig. 4.23).
The RSBW sherds number 104, whereas
there are 21 CSBW. For the first time
ever, the RSBW-org dominates the
RSBW assemblage, making up 65% of it.
Twelve RSBW sherds are of coarser
variants. Additionally, there are five
coarse ware (4%), five gray ware (4%),
47 Analyzed excavation codes: DMJ, DNR, DNS, DOA, DOB, and DRA.
Figure 4.23: Cream-slipped burnished wares from phase IVk.
169
three cream-on-red ware (2%), and two brown burnished ware (1%) fragments. All
together, these pieces make up roughly 11% of the whole pottery assemblage from IVk.
Seventy-seven out of 122 diagnostic sherds have organic material, mica and sand as non-
plastic inclusions. Eleven additional sherds also contain small grits. Forty-three sherds
have only sand and mica in their pastes. The majority of the RSBW (55 out of 92) have
organic, mica and sand material in their pastes, although simply sand and mica also
occur frequently (n=23). The CSBW display a similar pattern as seen in the 12 out of 18
examples that are tempered with organic, mica and sand, as well as with the five that
only have mica and sand temper. Gray ware examples have both organic, mica and sand
with and without small grits, as well as only sand-mica combinations. The majority of
the non-plastic inclusions were small in size (n=110), while 27 pieces have medium-
sized and only two of them have large-sized inclusions. The CSBW contain either small
or medium-sized inclusions. In most cases gray wares display small-sized particles in
their pastes and cream-on-red wares only have small-sized inclusions. Coarse wares have
small to medium-sized inclusions. Large-sized inclusions appear only in two coarse
pieces of RSBW, in a base and a lug.
Most of the pastes contain inclusions in regularly occurring amounts (n=84).
Nevertheless, 42 examples have abundant amounts of inclusions and only 13 have few
inclusions in their pastes. Abundant amounts of inclusions can appear as a mixture of
large, medium and small-sized inclusions. The CSBW has regularly occurring to
abundant amounts of inclusions in their pastes. Gray wares mostly have regular amounts
of inclusions and cream-on-red wares have regular to abundant inclusions of small sizes.
Lastly, coarse wares have regular to abundant inclusion amounts.
The great majority of the sherds have single-layered fractures but there are eleven three-
layered fractures, mainly orange-dark gray-orange, and four pieces with two-layered
fractures. As usual, single-colored fractures have a variety of colors ranging from orange
to black. Frequently occurring examples of single-colored fractures are brown (n=36),
dark gray (n=39) and orange (n=24). Less frequently observed colors are gray (n=12),
dark brown (n=9), black (n=3), and light brown (n=2). Completely black cores are
observed on two CSBW examples but the majority of the remaining CSBW have dark
gray fractures. There is only one CSBW example with orange-colored fractures. Gray
wares also have brown to dark gray fractures and cream-on-red wares display orange and
brown fracture colors. The RSBW appear with brown, dark gray and orange fractures.
170
Ten out of 20 fractures that are orange and light brown-colored contain only sand and
mica as non-plastic inclusions. However, the rest are tempered with organic material
together with sand, mica and occasionally, small grits. Non-porous examples outnumber
sherds with fine pores. Non-porous surfaces occur on 97 examples while pieces with
fine-porous surfaces number only 41. There is only one RSBW base with large-sized
pores. The majority of the CSBW are also non-porous. Gray wares and cream-on-red
wares are in all cases non-porous, while coarse wares are fine-porous.
One hundred and fifteen pieces are moderately hard. There are 16 very hard examples
and only nine soft ones. Hard sherds occur together with the RSBW and the CSBW. Soft
ones occur together mostly with the RSBW. Gray, cream-on-red and coarse wares are
always moderately hard.
All of the examples are slipped, mostly on both sides. Burnish is seen on all the sherds
except for six, which belong to gray and coarse wares. Ninety-seven sherds have bright,
24 have non-bright and 19 have very bright surfaces. Thirteen out of the 21 CSBW have
bright surfaces. Five additional examples display very bright surfaces. None of the gray
wares have bright surfaces, although three of them are burnished. Cream-on-red wares
also have bright surfaces. Coarse wares can have both bright and non-bright surfaces.
Seventy-nine RSBW sherds appear with bright surfaces, while 12 are non-bright and 13
have very bright surfaces. The outer surfaces of the sherds appear worn-out in ten
examples and four pieces are covered with a layer of minerals. Thirty-four examples
have mica glimmer. Additionally, 18 sherds display different colors on their outer and
inner surfaces, and 19 sherds are mottled on the outside. There are nine sherds that have
burnishing traces on them; four of them are vertically made, three are horizontal and two
are diagonal. Seven pieces are partly sooted or burnt.
The surface colors vary considerably, although some colors clearly dominate the
assemblage. Red occurs on 46 examples, orange on 32, brown on 24 and cream on 16
pieces. The rest of the pottery assemblage display colors like dark gray (n=2), dark red
(n=7), gray (n=3), dark brown (n=2), and light brown (n=7). Gray wares have brown,
dark gray and gray surface colors, whereas coarse wares have brown-dark brown
surfaces. Ninety-one out of 140 sherds have irregular color distribution on their surfaces
and regular color distributions are recorded on 49 examples.
171
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
Thirty sherds are smaller than 10cm2 and five of them are equal to or bigger than 50 cm2.
The ones that have medium sizes range from 10 to 48 cm2. The average size of the
sherds is 19.8 cm2. Heights of the sherds range from 1.3 to 9 cm and 61 sherds have a
height that is between 3-4 cm. The average height of the sherds is circa 3.5 cm. These
figures speak for relatively bad preservation conditions.
3.2. Wall Thickness
Ninety-two examples have wall thicknesses measuring between 2-4 mm. There are five
sherds with only 2 mm wall thicknesses, 43 with 3 mm and finally, 44 with 4 mm thick
walls. Another 43 sherds measure between 5-8 mm thick. The average thickness of all
wares is 4.3 mm. The RSBW have an average of 4.1 mm while the CSBW average 4.3
mm in wall thicknesses. Gray wares and coarse wares have higher thickness averages, at
respectively 5 mm and 5.5 mm. The thickest example measures 19 mm and belongs to a
possible foot from an offering table. There is also one rim sherd from a jar that is 9 mm
thick. These figures clearly illustrate the fineness of the vessels from this phase.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Various vessel forms are recorded in the assemblage (Pl. 32.1-32.12). The most
frequently occurring vessel shapes are bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=11; Pl. 32.5-
32.8), jars with everted necks (n=13) and jars without necks (n=19). Bowls with convex
profiles appear nine times (Pl. 32.9-32.12) and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles six
times. There are two CSBW dish fragments. The appearance of dishes in this early phase
is surprising, since they are observed extremely seldom in Ulucak’s Neolithic repertoire.
Less frequently appearing vessel shapes in this phase are bowls with straight profiles
(n=1) and jars with vertical necks (n=3). All in all, jars are dominant in the assemblage,
numbering 40. Most of them appear as RSBW or CSBW.
3.4. Rims
Seventy-five rim sherds were analyzed from IVk. They all fall into three type categories:
29 are classified as everted, 34 as simple and twelve as flattened rims. The thickness of
the flattened rims range from 2 to 21 mm. Extremely thick examples that exceed 50 mm
do not occur in the assemblage. The average rim diameter is 16.2 cm and almost half of
172
the analyzed rim sherds have rim diameters that measure between 12-16 cm. There are
more than 24 rim sherds with rim diameters either equal to or bigger than 18 cm. The
widest rim measures 26 cm. Both jars and bowls show similar values in terms of their
rim diameters which points out that small to medium-sized vessels were produced at this
time. Large-sized vessels seem to not be a part of the assemblage. Two dishes from this
phase have 22 cm for their rim diameters. Preservation of the rims is very bad in this
phase with only 6-10% of the entire rims being preserved in 55 out 61 rim sherds.
3.5. Bases
Almost all of the base fragments belong to
disc bases (Fig. 4.24; Pl. 32.13, 32.14). There
are only four flat bases and one ring base, the
latter appearing on a RSBW sherd. The base
diameters range between five to 14 cm. Most
of the bases measure only eight centimeters in
width and those which have diameters
exceeding 10 cm are very rare. These figures
indicate relatively small-sized vessels.
Preservation of bases is much better than in
the rim sherds, with two complete bases. At least 14 out of 44 base fragments belong to
unrestricted vessels. Eleven of these come from the coarser variant of the RSBW. A few
of the bases display sooted areas, which might indicate that some were used as cooking
vessels. Eight examples have mica glimmer on them. One of the disc bases shows the
coil break where the base and body were attached to one another. The inner surfaces of
the bases are frequently worn-out or not preserved at all. This is a feature that is seen
throughout the Neolithic sequence.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
There are only four lugs in the assemblage. All of them are vertically placed tubular lugs
belonging to RSBW vessels (Pl. 32.16). They have varying dimensions that measure 10
x 23, 18 x 40 and 19 x 45 mm. The fourth one is 12 mm wide and broken. They are
neither tiny nor too long, but rather medium-sized tubular lugs that display no
extraordinary traits. No handles were observed in this level. The small number of tubular
Figure 4.24: Base fragments from Phase IVk.
173
lugs and the absence of knobs might be a result of the relatively small size of the sample,
since knobs are observed in the earlier building phases.
3.7. Decoration
In comparison to the low number of bases or lugs there are plenty of decorated pieces
from this phase – 14 in total. These include three painted and 11 impressed sherds.
Painted examples show cream-colored paint on burnished orange-red-slipped surfaces.
Two of the painted pieces display horizontal bands (Pl. 32.17) and one has two
incomplete diagonal bands that probably formed a “V” shape. Since only tiny areas of
the painted sections were preserved, it is impossible to tell what the designs are.
The impressions that are present are regular, intensive, diagonal, deep, and semi- circular
(Pl. 32.18). These designs can be observed on gray ware and RSBW sherds of small
sizes (around 8-10 cm2). Five out of eleven impressed sherds are associated with gray
ware and the rest are seen on red-slipped and burnished pieces. Six impressed sherds
show nail impressions and another four have semi-circles, one of which also has
shallow, irregularly made horizontal and vertical impressions upon it. The impressions
cover the whole surface of each piece; however, some are intensely made and some are
not. One of the impressed pieces is seen on a base fragment of gray ware.
174
L. Layer Va
1. Description of the phase
Architectural debris from building phase Va was uncovered at two excavation grids
located at different places on the mound, namely in Grids N11 and L13.
Layer Va remains from N11 were excavated in 2003 by Fulya Dedeoğlu. The excavation
area was located in the southern section of the grid and was approximately 3.6 x 1.9 m
(ca. 6.8 m2). The deposit was orange-brown colored and included many burnt mud
fragments and charcoal. The remains of two adjacent post-wall buildings, named 27 and
28, were uncovered in this layer (Fig. 4.25). The dark brown- black-colored floors of
these buildings were found at elevations between 215.95-215.90 m. Inner architectural
elements are preserved in Building 28 and could only be unearthed partially. One free-
standing mud storage unit was found in the central part of the excavated area.
Additionally, large piles of sling missiles were found in both of the buildings next to
crushed pottery vessels, of which probably once held them.
Architectural remnants belonging to the same building phase were also excavated in
Grid L13, which is located towards the northern edge of the mound. The excavation of
Figure 4.25: Buildings 27 and 28 in Grid N11.
175
the Va deposits took place in 2003 and 2004, and was supervised by Ali Ozan and
Mücella Erdalkıran. In 2005, the exposed structures were removed by Fulya Dedeoğlu,
who identified a terracing activity that was made prior to the construction of the Va
buildings. The Layer Va buildings were then exposed in a large area, which covered the
complete grid area and enabled us to obtain more information on the daily life of the
earlier Ulucak community (Photo Plate 2.2). In Grid L13, inner spaces as well as open
areas were discovered. Buildings 22 through 26 were built adjacent to each other, using
mud and wood. Post-holes in the mud walls are observed in many places. Although only
15-20 cm of the wall height has survived, the inner features and objects that were present
in the houses are preserved surprisingly well. The good preservation is probably partially
due to a heavy fire, which probably did burn down the whole settlement. The burnt
deposits were discovered in grid N11, which is located at the center of the mound. The
buildings contained ovens, hearths, mud storage units, pottery vessels, as well as
concentrations of objects like sling missiles and loom weights. The burnt floor of
Building 23 was found at 215.82 m deep. Building 26 has its floor at 215.47 m, Building
22 at 215.57 m and Building 25 at 215.41 m deep. The floors in Buildings 23 and 22 are
whitish-colored and plastered, whereas in Buildings 25, 26, and 24 the floors are
represented with burnt dark brown-colored, hard surfaces (Fig. 4.26).
Figure 4.26: Buildings 22-26 in Grid L13.
176
The open sections contain evidence for activity areas. Concentrations of animal bones,
horns and a great many stone tools are identified at the northwestern side of the grid
while in the southern sections concentrations of shells, animal bones, horns, and many
lithic tools were found. These might be areas where butchering and manufacturing of
bone tools or shell ornaments took place.
There are 378 diagnostic sherds and nine complete vessels that were analyzed from
Phase Va, from Grids N11 and L13. The diagnostic sherds include 237 rim fragments,
93 bases, 40 handles/lugs, and seven decorated body sherds.48
2. Fabric
The majority of the analyzed sherds belong to fine (n=167) and coarse RSBW (n=23),
constituting 49% of the assemblage. Of these, 78% belongs to RSBW-min and 22% to
RSBW-org. The quantity of the CSBW increases remarkably in this phase, representing
29% of the assemblage (n=111). Likewise, brown-colored burnished wares also increase,
making up 10% of the assemblage (n=40). Coarse ware is represented with 7% (n=26).
There are three red-on-cream painted pieces (1%) and one ware with mica glimmer. Six
burnt sherds with very badly preserved surfaces were left as unidentified (2%).
The bulk of the examples contain mica and sand as inclusions (n=255), while organic-
mica-sand also continues to occur (n=74). The co-occurrence of mineral inclusions (i.e.
sand-grit-mica) is also seen on 37 examples. Lime inclusions are observed in 10 pieces
but the sand-mica combination dominates all types of wares. Seventy-three out of 112
CSBW and 128 out of 190 RSBW contain sand-mica as non-plastic inclusions.
However, two of the red-on-cream contain organic material in addition to mica and sand.
Coarse wares also have sand-mica inclusions but they are accompanied by other
minerals. Most pastes have regularly occurring amounts of non-plastics (n=256). Pieces
with few amount are also common (n=78) and there are 45 sherds with abundant
amounts of non-plastics. There seems to be no meaningful correlation between the ware
type and the amount of inclusions. Almost the entire assemblage shows small-sized non-
plastics. Medium-sized inclusions are observed in 32 cases, while large-sized inclusions
are not seen at all.
48 The analyzed excavation units from Grid N11 are DRB, DRE, DRK, DRM, DRZ, DSA, DSG, DSV, and DSY. The analyzed excavation units from Grid L13 are DFK, DGI, DIL, DIM, DJI, DJM, DJN, DJV, DKP, DKS, DKV, DOP, DPN, DPU, DSJ, DSL, DTA, DTD, DTF, DZB, DZD, DZE, DZJ, DZK, DZL, DZO, DZU,DZV, EAD, EAE, EAF, EBA, EBB, EBM, and EFV.
177
Fractures are mainly single-colored, although two and three-layered fractures, as well as
multi-colored examples also occur. There are 340 pieces with single-colored fractures
and only 14 three-layered examples and 21 two-layered pieces. The majority of the
single-colored fractures are brown (n=124) but dark brown, gray and dark gray fractures
also occur frequently. Gray and dark gray cores usually contain organic inclusions.
Orange and light brown cores, usually appearing with sand-mica inclusions, are
observed both on RSBW and CSBW. These cores indicate fully-oxidized firing
conditions were achieved. However, dark-colored cores dominate, which might indicate
the potters’ predisposition for non-oxidized firing conditions. Three-layered cores are
low in number and usually appear with brown-gray-brown or orange-brown-orange,
orange-dark gray-orange layers. The dark-colored central layer is usually a result of the
incomplete oxidization of the organic material in the paste.
The greater part of the assemblage is comprised of moderately hard pieces (n=266).
There are 69 hard examples and low-fired (or soft) examples are encountered 49 times.
Almost the complete assemblage is non-porous (n=353). Fine-porous examples number
only 26 and there are only two coarse-porous examples in the assemblage. There are six
pieces with damaged surfaces. Slip is commonly observed on RSBW and CSBW and is
not present on coarse wares; while gray wares seem to have self-slips. Most sherds are
slipped on both sides, however, there are examples where only outer surfaces are
slipped. The bulk of the sherds are burnished, or at least smoothed. Two hundred and
fifty-two sherds have bright, 50 have very bright and 83 examples have non-bright
surfaces. Most of the coarse and gray wares have non-bright surfaces but few RSBW and
CSBW reveal such surfaces. One hundred and five examples have mica glimmer on their
surfaces, 14 of these being very heavy. Additionally, 46 examples are partly sooted. This
sooting can be seen both on the inside and outside of the vessels. Twelve pieces have
burnishing marks on them, 10 of them vertically made. Mottling is observed on 25
pieces.
Surface colors vary a lot in this phase. Cream (n=58), brown (n=50), red (n=89) and
orange (n=75) are the most frequently observed colors. Light brown (n=37) also appears
frequently, especially in association with the CSBW. There are 29 dark red examples and
dark brown and black surfaces are seen rarely. The colors can be both regularly and
irregularly distributed over the surfaces, with regular distribution seen on 220 examples
and irregular distribution present on 167 examples.
178
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
The average area of all diagnostic sherds is 21.9 cm2. Rim sherds have a mean area of
182 cm2. The minimum area measured is 5 cm2, while the maximum area reaches 280
cm2. The mean height of the sherds is 3.9 cm and rim sherds have a mean height of 4.2
cm. The minimum preserved height is 1.1 cm for all sherds and 3.7 for all rim sherds.
All these figures speak for a relatively well-preservation. Supporting this idea, is the fact
that there are nine complete vessels from this phase. Complete vessels have heights
between 3-11 cm, which means that only small-sized vessels could survive completely;
whereas middle-large-sized vessels were all damaged in the debris.
3.2. Wall Thickness
The better part of the diagnostic sherds have thicknesses between 2-4 mm. There are 124
examples with 3 mm thick walls and walls that are 4 mm thick are found on 138 pieces.
There are even 28 examples with only 2 mm thick walls. The number of sherds that are
5-8 mm thick is 81 and there are seven pieces that have walls which measure 9-12 mm.
The mean wall thickness is 3.9 mm, with a minimum of 2 mm and a maximum value of
14 mm.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
Unrestricted vessels outnumber the restricted vessels in this assemblage (Pl. 34.1-34.16).
The most frequently occurring unrestricted form is the bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile
(n=57). Bowls with convex profiles follow with 20 pieces. Deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles are also commonly come across within this phase (n=19), while deep bowls with
convex profiles occur 12 times in the assemblage. There are also two dishes in the
analyzed examples. Restricted forms (Pl. 33.1-33.14; Pl. 35.1, 35.2) are dominated by
jars without necks (n=56), jars with short necks (n=28) and jars with everted necks
(n=15). Jars with vertical necks appear only four times. Three miniature vessels and one
special form, a probable brazier (Pl. 36.9), complete the assemblage.
There are nine complete vessel profiles recovered in the debris of this building phase. As
usual, small-sized bowls and jars could be recovered either completely or in crushed
states within the debris. Three cream-slipped and burnished bowls with ‘s’-shaped
179
profiles and heights of 6.8, 7.5 and 8.3 cm, are among these vessels. One of them
(drawing number: 13646) is very fine with a 3 mm wall thickness. The other sherds with
whole profiles include two cream-slipped jars with short necks, one coarsely made
miniature vessel and two red-slipped jars without necks; these pieces all have heights of
9 and 11 cm. Some were found in the fill of the buildings and others were recovered on
the floor of buildings 22 and 23, in Grid L13. The brazier and one of the jars with a short
neck (drawing number: 18927) were recovered in Building 22. Building 23 revealed two
complete profiles, one jar without a neck (drawing number: 17818) and one miniature
vessel (drawing number: 2438).
3.4. Rims
Everted rims constitute 50% of the assemblage (n=123). Simple rims are counted in 94
instances, making up 38% of the assemblage, and flattened rims are observed only 26
times. Thicknesses of the flattened rims change between 2-34 mm but most pieces are
between 3-6 mm. Flattened rims are mostly associated with the RSBW, brown-colored
and burnished ware and coarse wares. There is one sharply everted rim.
One hundred and ninety-eight examples are large enough to measure their rim diameters.
The minimum measured diameter is four and the maximum value is 32 cm, making the
mean value 16.3 cm. Orifices that exceed 20 cm are mostly seen on jars without necks
and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles have rim
diameters that range between 8-22 cm with an average of 15 cm. Bowls with convex
profiles have rim diameters that vary between 10-22 cm and average 14.6 cm.
3.5. Bases
Disc bases are almost the only base type seen in this phase; they make up 91 out of 99
base or base fragments (Pl. 37.1-37.10). There are only eight simple flat bases, one ring
base and two bases that are categorized as “other” in the assemblage. Disc bases can be
around 8-12 mm high and some are not attached to the body at 90 degrees. There are 18
complete bases encountered in the assemblage. Base diameters are found to measure
between 3.4-18 cm, with the average value at 8.4 cm. Some bases are sooted, on the
outside mostly, and few have mica glimmer.
180
3.6. Handles and Lugs
Forty lugs and four handles were analyzed from Layer Va. Twenty-eight of all lugs are
vertically placed tubular lugs with lengths ranging between 10-65 mm (Pl. 36.11-36.13,
36.18, 36.19). Fifteen of all tubular lugs have lengths between 21-40 mm. There are
three lugs that have lengths that exceed 50 mm. The widths, on the other hand, range
from 7 to 22 mm. One of the tubular lugs is very thin and long, measuring 9 x 65 mm.
Tubular lugs are found upon RSBW, CSBW, coarse ware, and brown wares. They are in
most cases attached to the shoulders of jars. Seven single knobs (Pl. 36.15) and five
pierced knobs (Pl. 36.16, 36.17) also exist in the assemblage. Single knobs are all
horizontally placed on the jar bodies. Widths range from 18-30 mm and lengths vary
between 8-15 mm. Likewise, pierced knobs are placed horizontally on the vessels. Their
widths vary between 10-34 mm while their lengths are 13-21 mm.
Only four handles are found in the assemblage. All of them are loop handles, two of
them horizontally and two others vertically attached to the vessel bodies (Pl. 36.16). All
of them are found on the RSBW vessels. Their sizes vary between 33 x 16, 35 x 23 and
26 x 38 mm.
3.7. Decoration
Out of 387 diagnostic sherds and complete vessels only 17 bare some sort of decoration.
Twelve of these decorated specimens have impressions, three are painted and one of
them has a plastic application. Seven of the impressed pieces are on gray ware, one is
impressed on brown-colored burnished ware, two are found on RSBW, and one is on a
CSBW vessel. Seven of the impressions were made either with fingernails or a tool that
leaves nail-like impressions (Pl. 35.1, 35.2, 35.3). Two of them have also small circles
together with nail impressions. There is one complete 11 cm high jar that is entirely
covered with nail and circular impressions. There are shallow and deep, as well as
irregular and regular impressions. There is no unity in the execution of the impressions.
All of the three painted pieces, one body sherd, one rim sherd and a base were found in
the same deposit. However, they do not belong to the same vessel. The rim sherd is from
a bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile, whereas the base seems to belong to a bowl with a
convex profile. Two of the red-on-cream painted examples show horizontal bands and
they are both made on small body sherds. The first has horizontal bands that measure 11
181
mm wide and the other has 15 mm thick horizontal bands. The base fragment has very
interesting decoration as seen in a red-colored cross that is found on the inner and outer
surfaces of the piece (Pl. 35.5). The inner cross survived better. This is a unique piece
not only because the cross design is a rare one but also because the decoration is seen in
the inside of the vessel.
Likewise, another interesting and rare decoration is seen on a bowl with a ‘s’-shaped
profile. The decoration covers the entire surface and is extremely regular and without
any empty spaces The decoration is executed by pulling the surface with two finger tips
while it is still wet; this can be described as “pinching.” The outer surface of the vessel is
left without a slip or burnishing, while the contrasting inner surface is orange, slipped
and burnished.
182
M. Layer Vb
1. Description of the phase
The cultural fill that is identified under the Va buildings and their terraced layers
(215.55-215.51 m) is named Layer Vb. This layer is characterized by roughly 30 cm of
thick debris of burnt orange-yellow and brown-colored mud and charcoal. The layer was
excavated extensively in Grid L13 in 2005-2006 under the direction of Fulya Dedeoğlu.
During this time three free-standing buildings, one complete and two partial, were
unearthed. The northern sections of Buildings 31 and 33 were excavated on the southern
part of the grid in 2005. Building 33 was discovered with a plastered floor at 215.02 m
deep and it contained five circular bins, an extremely damaged oven and clay elements,
like platforms, that belonged to the oven. Building 31 is also incompletely exposed, but
rather along the southeastern corner of the grid. The borders of this structure are
determined by the remnant rows of post holes which encompass an area of 2.2 x 1.5 m.
Inside this building, the floor level can be found at 215.07 m deep and it is burnt and
black-colored on its surface with numerous finds scattered across it. The finds include
sling missiles, loom weights, flat-surfaced stones, as well as many obsidian and flint
flakes and tools; which has led the excavators to interpret this building as a “workshop”
(Photo Plate 5.2; Çilingiroğlu and Dedeoğlu 2006: 140). Alternatively, the limited
excavated area could correspond to the work area inside a house.
Building 30 has an area of 4.5 x 4.5 m and was for the most part exposed completely in
the northern part of the grid (L13a-b) in 2006. The walls of the building are
approximately 15 cm thick and they have plastering on both sides. The plastered floor
had at least three renewal phases and is found at 215.07 m deep. In the central part of the
building, towards the southern wall, two post holes that reach depths of 26 cm and
probably originally supported the roof structure were found. The entrance to the building
is situated on the southern side and is 1.30 m wide. Building 30 contains absolutely the
best preserved inner architectural elements and portable objects at Ulucak. Six circular
mud bins, two square-shaped mud storage units, one damaged oven, and three clay
platforms are among the inner architectural elements. All of these structures were found
along the walls of buildings, some are even almost attached to the wall. Portable finds in
the building are dominated by 25 pottery vessels, most of which were found crushed or
intact on the floor and some were even inside one another (Pl. 46). Fifteen of the 25
183
vessels are preserved almost wholly and from this group, thirteen were already submitted
to the İzmir Archaeological Museum.
The pottery analysis is concentrated on material from the fill and the floor of the
buildings and the outer open areas that lie between them. Apart from eighteen complete
profiles, 192 rim sherds, 80 base fragments, 51 lugs and one lid were put to analysis; this
adds up to 342 pieces in total. Almost all complete vessels (15 of 19) were found in situ
inside Building 30, on the floor.
2. Fabric
The assemblage contains a variety of wares in various quantities. RSBW is represented
with 37% (n=127) and RSBW-min represents 92% of RSBW. RSBW-org makes up only
8% of RSBW sample. Brown-colored burnished wares constitute 29% (n=99) and
CSBW 24% (n=81) of the assemblage. Coarse wares are present with 6% (n=19) and
mica glimmer ware only with 1% (n=5) in the collection. There are 11 sherds that are
classified as unidentifiable due to post-depositional processes, like bleaching, or their
badly preserved surfaces.
Non-plastic inclusions mostly consist of sandy material and mica, both of which are
observed in 231 pieces. The organic, mica and sand combination is seen in 43 examples,
while sand, mica and grit are in 47 pieces. Lime is included rarely and if included, is
combined with sand (n=2) or sand and mica (n=6). Mineral non-plastics were clearly
preferred by the potters. The sand-mica combination is frequently seen in the pastes of
all ware groups. One hundred and eighty-nine out of 340 sherds have regularly occurring
amount of non-plastics in their pastes, and 72 examples had few while 71 had abundant
amounts of non-plastic inclusions. The great majority of the sherds included small sized
non-plastics. Only 49 have medium-sized inclusions and large-sized inclusions are not
observed at all. There are seven examples which were left as unclassified.
The bulk of the fractures are made out of single layers (n=294). There are 19 two-layered
cores and three-layered cores are seen in 21 examples. Three examples are multi-colored
and three are unidentifiable. Most of the single-colored fractures have colors such as
brown (n=85), light brown (n=77), orange (n=31), dark brown (n=30), and dark gray
(n=21). Orange, orange-brown, red, and reddish brown cores are associated with pastes
that contain only mineral inclusions. Other colors appear both with mineral and organic
inclusions together. Likewise, most brown-colored cores are associated with mineral
184
inclusions. Organic inclusions usually end up with gray-dark gray tones after firing. In
terms of their hardness, 259 pieces are moderately hard, 56 are hard and 25 examples are
soft.
Most pottery examples are not porous due to careful burnishing (n=311). Fine-porous
surfaces are seen 16 times and coarse porous examples only seven times. There are six
unidentifiable sherds. Porous examples do not necessarily appear together with organic
tempered sherds. There are 314 sherds that have slips covering their surface and only 11
seem to have no slips, leaving 15 as unidentifiable. In most cases, slips covers both
surfaces. There are 46 sherds that are slipped only on the outside. Another 17 sherds
have worn-out, or invisible, surfaces which are left as unidentifiable. Two hundred and
fifty-six sherds have bright surfaces, 68 are non-bright and 16 have very bright surfaces.
Of the 106 sherds that display mica glimmer on their surface, 18 of them have very
intense glimmer. Twenty-seven of the sherds show traces of sooting, mostly only partial
sooting. These sooted areas are for the most part observed on bases and lugs. Bases can
have sooting concentrated in the inside of the vessel. Thirty-three sherds have
transparent whitish layers covering them, either completely or partially. Traces of
burning are seen on 23 pieces, eight of these clearly due to secondary burning. There are
33 mottled sherds, which are largely comprised of brown-red, orange-red-brown and
brown-gray mottling. Fourteen sherds have burnishing traces preserved on them; 11 of
these are vertical marks, two are diagonal and one is horizontal. Most of the burnishing
marks are observed on rim sherds. Lastly, two pieces have their surfaces cracked by lime
inclusions.
Surface colors are very diverse in this phase. Brown (n=92), red (n=59), light brown
(n=46), cream (n=37), orange (n=32), and dark red (n=30) are frequently observed outer
surface colors. Gray (n=6), dark gray (n=9), dark brown (n=5), and reddish brown (n=8)
are seen much less frequently.
3. Morphology
3.1. Size
Excluding the complete vessels, the mean area of potsherds from this phase is around 27
cm2. The minimum area is five and the maximum 225 cm2. Most sherds have areas
between 10-15 cm2 and rims have an average size of 24.3 cm2. Examples that exceed
100 cm2 are very rare, being confined to seven pieces. The heights of all 340 sherds have
185
a mean value of 4.5 cm. The maximum height is 16 cm, while the minimum value is 1
cm. Thirty-five potsherds have heights below 2 cm. Rim sherds with heights between 4-
7 cm are the majority. Rim sherds with small areas and heights, as well as low
preservation on their rims, number 12. Otherwise, the preservation in this assemblage is
good enough to allow inferences on vessel morphology.
3.2. Wall Thickness
The entire Vb assemblage, regardless of the ware groups, is characterized by very thin
walls. There are 21 sherds with 2 mm thick walls, although the majority have walls that
measure between 3-4 mm. There are 130 walls that have 3 mm thicknesses and 118 with
4 mm thick walls. Walls that exceed 5 mm are rare and there are only four sherds with
wall thicknesses that exceed 9 mm. The mean thickness of all diagnostic and rim sherds
is 3.8 mm. The minimum value is 1 mm and the maximum thickness value is 12 mm;
both extreme values are represented with single examples.
CSBW and brown-burnished wares have mean wall thicknesses of 3.6 mm, while RSBW
are on average 3.8 mm thick. Coarse wares have a mean thickness of 5 mm. These
figures indicate that CSBW and brown-burnished wares tend to be finer than other ware
groups, including RSBW.
3.3. Vessel Shapes
With 66 identified examples,
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles
are without a doubt the most
frequently occurring vessel type
in this phase. Other bowl types
are observed less commonly,
such as bowls with convex
profiles, which are recorded only
23 times (Pls. 41, 42, 43). There
is also one dish fragment (Pl.
42.13). Among other unrestricted
vessel types, deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (n=34) and deep bowls with convex
profiles (n=11) are encountered most frequently. Deep and shallow bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles do indeed dominate the Vb assemblage.
Figure 4.27: Complete vessels found in Building 30.
186
Jars also occur frequently. Jars without necks appear 36 times while jars with short necks
are documented 26 times. There are three jars with vertical necks and seven jar
fragments with everted necks. One spouted jar is seen in the assemblage, a form seen
extremely rarely. Additionally, there is one possible brazier, a portable hearth, and a lid
from the assemblage.
The completely preserved vessels in Building 30 are as follows: three bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles, one bowl with a convex profile, two deep bowls with convex profiles,
one deep bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile, eight jars without necks, and one jug (Fig. 4.27;
Pls. 38-40; Pl. 46). All of them have disc bases that have diameters of between 3.8-10.5
cm. Rims are either of simple or everted types. Wall thicknesses range between 3-7 mm.
Jars are mainly small to medium in size, with heights that are from 6.7 to 19 cm, and
with rim diameters that range between 8-17 cm. Six of the jars have vertically placed
tubular lugs on their shoulders and the other three have horizontally placed pierced
knobs. The number of lugs and knobs on each jar is always four. Bowls are around 7-8
cm high with rim diameters that measure between 10-15 cm and base diameters of 3.8-6
Figure 4.28: Reconstruction of the in situ positions of vessels after their restoration in Building 30 (view from South).
187
cm. Deep bowls have greater rim diameters that reach up to 26 cm and heights of 11 cm.
Only one of the deep bowls with a convex profile has vertically placed tubular lugs on it.
The distribution of the vessels in the house creates an interesting pattern (Fig. 4.28; Pl.
46). Medium-sized jars and the jug are closely associated with the daub storage bins on
the northern wall of the building. They were recovered either adjacent to the bins or then
even inside of them. The large bowls and two small bowls are situated in the center of
the house, interpreted as an activity area, and are closely associated with flat stones.
Another jar with a short neck and four tubular lugs was found right next to a small bin in
the southwestern section of the house and one bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile was found
close to the door. Some of the vessels were found one inside the other, which was
probably done to conserve space in the house. The contextual relationship between the
storage units and the medium-sized jars is meaningful.
3.4. Rims
Two hundred and ten rims were documented from this phase, of which 130 are everted,
64 are simple, 12 are flattened, and two are sharply everted. Everted rims constitute 62%
of the entire assemblage and simple rims make up 31%. Flattened rims are only 6% of
the assemblage and their widths range from 2 to 14 mm. Eight of them are 3-6 mm.
There is one single spouted rim in the assemblage belonging to a jar found in Building
30.
Most of the rim sherds were preserved fairly badly with only 8-10% of the rim circles
preserved. There are also few completely preserved rims. Around 10 examples were
preserved so badly that their rim diameters could not be measured with certainty. The
minimum rim diameter value is 4 cm and the maximum is 32 cm, with the mean rim
diameter value measuring 16.4 cm. The rims with diameters exceeding 22 cm are mostly
associated with deep bowls and jars. Large bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles have mean rim
diameters of 20.9 cm. Some small-sized jars possibly have rims that are even smaller
than 10 cm. Jars without necks have an average rim value of 13.8 cm. Most bowls have
rims which are measured between 12-17 cm. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles have an
average rim diameter of 14.5 cm. Similarly, bowls with convex profiles have a mean
value of 15 cm.
188
3.5. Bases
Thirty-two out of 98 bases were wholly preserved in the assemblage, indicating better
preservation conditions in favor of bases in comparison to rims. Of the preserved bases,
25 belong to unrestricted vessels, indicated by their slipped and burnished inner surfaces.
Out of 98 bases, 92 are disc types (Pl. 45.1-45.5). Disc bases can be up to 11 mm high.
There are only four simple flat and two ring bases (Pl. 45.6, 45.7). Both ring bases are
seen on RSBW vessels. The average base diameter is 7.9 cm, with the maximum value at
13.3 cm and the minimum diameter at 3.6 cm.
3.6. Handles and Lugs
In total, 74 handle or lug fragments from Vb debris were analyzed. Only three of these
belonged to loop handles; two of them were horizontally and one vertically placed. The
horizontal loop handles measure 51 x 18 cm and 44 x 17 cm, with the vertical handle 21
x 31 cm.
There are three types of lugs observed in the assemblage: tubular lugs, pierced knobs and
single knobs (Pl. 45.9-45.16). Fifty-nine out of 74 lugs are vertically placed tubular lugs,
while five single and ten pierced knobs also appear. Tubular lugs are very frequent with
lengths ranging from 15 to 66 mm. Tubular lugs are mostly long and thin, with six
examples that are over 5 cm long. Widths change between 4-20 mm. Of the 15 vessels
found in Building 30, six had tubular lugs on them that all numbered four (Pl. 38.2, 38.3;
Pl. 39.1, 39.2, 39.4; Pl. 40.3) . On the jug, lugs are placed in pairs and are very close to
each other (Pl. 38.1).
Pierced knobs are encountered on ten diagnostic pieces (Pl. 45.13, 45.14, 45.16). These
have widths between 15-30 mm and lengths between 6-24 mm. Three of the vessels
found in Building 30 contained horizontally placed pierced knobs, attached on the
shoulders. Single knobs are observed on five potsherds (Pl. 45.15). One of them has a
quadrangular shape with a size of 21 x 9 mm. Widths of the single knobs vary between
13-31 and lengths are between 9-16 mm. They are always attached horizontally to the
vessel body.
3.7. Decoration
Decoration is almost absent in the Vb assemblage. There are only three diagnostic sherds
with decoration and all belong to the same vessel but they do not fit with each other.
These pieces include one rim sherd and two body sherds of brown-colored burnished
189
ware. The three pieces were found together outside of Building 30. They display a wavy
plastic band that is attached to their surfaces and resembles a bucranium; but since the
band was continuously made, it is more appropriate to describe it as a wavy line (Pl.
44.1). Besides, on one piece, the bucranium is upside-down and another one has it
oriented to the right; this means the wavy line was continuous and the potter did not
intend to execute a bucranium shape. The three sherds belong to a jar with a short neck
and an everted rim that measures 10 cm in diameter. The vessel has 3 mm thick walls,
sand-mica inclusions and mica glimmer on its surface.
The six millimeter thick brown-colored and burnished band is located under the short
neck as a separate attachment. Although the band was attached carefully and later rubbed
and burnished to hide the attachment, the vessel was partly broken where the application
was attached. The band is not symmetrical and it is not clear whether it circumnavigated
the vessel. The curious property of this decoration is that it is also pierced to make it
functional, for example, it could have been used as a pierced knob. The pierced hole is
small but was significant enough in size to pass a rope through. Additionally, there are
at least two other pierced pieces that were used as knobs.
190
N. Comparison of Pottery from Levels V and IV Analysis of pottery from the sub-phases of Levels IV and V enables us to compare and
contrast the characteristics of these two levels. Our impression is that there are four
developmental phases in the Ulucak pottery assemblage: Late IV, corresponding to
building phases IVa through IVf; Early IV, corresponding to IVg through IVk; and Level
V, including sub-phases Va and Vb, the final two developmental phases (Tab. 4.4).
Layers Va and Vb, although building phases that follow one another, are also quite
different from each other and need to be treated separately.
It needs to be pointed out that the phases we define here rely on the changes seen solely
in the ceramics and architectural techniques and are in no way conclusive. The aim of
this schema is to allow the readers to have an overall glimpse at the ceramic features at
Ulucak through time. Future research at the site may transform the current understanding
presented here concerning the ceramic development on the mound. Analysis of other
material cultural elements from Ulucak may alter the way we define the major
developmental stages or, alternatively, they may concur with our results. In terms of the
ceramics stages defined here, data from Phase Early IV relies on small sample size as
these deposits were excavated in one grid. Moreover, they are prone to contamination.
Although the contexts and quantity of pottery analyzed from Va and Vb present us a
Table 4.4: Typical pottery features of four developmental stages at Ulucak.
Approximate calibrated age 5800-5700 BCE 6000-5900
BCE 6100 BCE 6300-6200 BCE
Typical features Late IV Early IV Va Vb
Fabric
1. RSBW + Gray Ware 2. Impressed pottery 3. Chaff inclusions 4. Porous surfaces 5. Light surface colors
1. RSBW + CSBW 2. Impressed pottery 3. Few painted pieces
1. RSBW + CSBW 2. Earliest BBW 3. Non-porous surfaces 4. Increased use of mineral temper
1. BBW + Mica Glimmer Ware 2. Mineral temper 3. Non-porosity 4. Dark surface colors 5. No impressions
Morphology
1. Long necks 2. Small vertical handles on rims 3. Large jars 4. Flat bases 5. Double knobs 6. Thick flattened rims 7. Oval forms 8. Anthropomorphic vessels
1. Jars without necks 2. Short-necked jars
1. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles 2. Jars without neck 3. Disc bases 4. Small handles 5. Horizontal knobs below the rim
1. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles 2. Jars without necks 3. Disc bases 4. Long-thin tubular lugs 5. Small vessel sizes
191
more reliable picture, these are likewise known from only restricted excavation areas.
The table above aims to summarize the typical features of the pottery from the four
different stages we have identified at Ulucak. Below, the properties of pottery from these stages is compared and contrasted in order to
understand the development seen in the fabric and morphology of Ulucak Neolithic
pottery.
1. Fabric
In terms of wares, most of the types persist through Layer Vb to IVa. What does change
is the quantity of different wares in the assemblage. The RSBW increases radically from
Vb to IVb (Tab. 4.5). In Phase Vb, the RSBW is represented in 41% of the assemblage,
while with Early IV (IVa-f) it makes up 94% of the ceramic assemblage. In this latter
and later stage the RSBW becomes almost the only fabric that is produced. The RSBW-
org makes up 83% of the total RSBW samples in Level IV and RSBW-min constitutes
only 17% of the RSBW sample. However, in Level V the percentage of the RSBW-org
drops to only 16%, while RSBW-min increases substantially, comprising 84% of all
RSBW. On the other hand, CSBW and brown burnished ware decrease from Level V to
Table 4.5: Quantitative change in the occurrence of wares in Ulucak IV-V.
192
IV. The CSBW reaches its highest point in Va making up 32% of the collection, while in
Vb it is represented in 27% of the pieces. CSBW-org is more commonly found in Level
IV (n=73/109), whereas in Level V CSBW-min dominates at 149 out of the 192
examples. Brown burnished ware is a characteristic of Vb with 32% of the assemblage,
although earlier occurrences were recorded in Early IV and Va. Gray ware is observed in
all building phases except in Vb. With Vb, gray ware, as well as impressed decoration,
are no longer observed. Gray ware never becomes quantitatively high in any of the
phases at Ulucak, forming only 4-5% of its assemblage. Gray ware’s total absence in Vb
is considered significant in terms of constructing an interregional chronological
sequence. It is worth underlining the fact that in Vb impressed decoration, usually
associated with gray ware, is not observed on RSBW or other ware categories either.
Coarse wares are present in the entire Ulucak assemblage and are represented at 5-6% in
various building phases. Painted wares, whether red-on-cream or cream-on-red, are as a
rule encountered very rarely in all building phases. These wares are always seen on
small-sized body sherds and rarely on rim sherds, which suggests bad preservation
conditions for such painted vessels. The single painted ware that is an exception to this
rule is the anthropomorphic vase found in Building 8 from Level IVb, which was
exposed to secondary fire and consequently was re-fired and hardened. Cream-on-red
ware is especially associated with Early IV, appearing only in sub-phases IVh-k, and
red-on-cream is observed more from Va to IVb. Likewise, mica glimmer ware is
extremely rare and its significance lays in its single appearance in sub-phase Vb where it
comprises 1% (n=5) of the assemblage.
Cores from the Ulucak IV-V pottery are very frequently single-colored (86-91%). Two
or three-layered fractures are seen in the assemblage but are always far less in number
than single-colored fractures (6-15%). Multi-colored fractures are extremely rare (1-4%)
in all phases (Tab. 4.6). Fractures with single colors are mostly in brown or gray hues;
orange and light brown fractures also occur in all phases. Completely black cores are
rare, although 14 examples are recorded from IVb. Inoxidized cores are very frequently
observed at Ulucak IV-V, they make up around 60% of the analyzed pottery. It is worth
noting that pottery with inoxidized cores constitutes 62 % of IVb pottery and 59% of Vb.
Additionally, there are incompletely oxidized cores with two or three layers. Three-
layered fractures usually have gray-brown centers with light-colored paste surrounding
their dark-colored center. Between Layers Vb through IVb two and three-layered
193
fractures decrease from 17% to 9%, while oxidized cores increase from 24 to 29%. In
terms of fracture structures and different ware types, there does not seem to be a
meaningful correlation. RSBW from IVb have 61% inoxidized, 15% incompletely
oxidized and 27% completely oxidized cores. In Vb, inoxidized cores drop to 49% while
oxidized cores reach to 33%. In most phases CSBW includes 53-55% inoxidized cores
while with 74-80%, gray wares tend to have more inoxidized cores. Brown burnished
wares are 85% inoxidized in Va while only 50% are inoxidized in Vb. Likewise, painted
wares are mostly inoxidized or incompletely oxidized. In terms of firing procedures,
there seems to be no great differences observed between differently defined wares.
In contrast to the fracture structure, which remains more or less unchanged throughout
the sequence, remarkable changes are observed in the non-plastic inclusions. The most
crucial change in the non-plastics is the abrupt increase in the organic temper
(specifically chaff) from V to IVk and to IVb. In IVb, organic temper is observed in 63%
of all ceramics, while only 14% of Vb pottery included organic non-plastic inclusions.
Level Va-b pottery predominantly contains mineral inclusions (i.e. sand, mica and, to a
lesser extent, grit). Sixty-nine percent of all Vb pottery contains only mica and sand as
non-plastic inclusions. However, one of the characteristics of Late IV pottery is the
organic inclusions observed in its fractures, as well as the tiny pores on the surface that
were left by the burnt chaff. This abrupt change in the non-plastics suggests differing
ceramic technologies and practices employed by the communities that inhabited Ulucak.
Table 4.6: Core properties of Ulucak IV-V pottery. Inoxidized cores remain dominant throughout the sequence.
194
Chaff as pottery temper is considered an indication for a developed agricultural
community, since by-products of agricultural production like chaff are also well-
integrated into the daily life of such societies. The size of non-plastics likewise reflects
the change in the temper material. For example, Level V pottery contains predominantly
small-sized non-plastics (84% in Vb, 91% in Va), while IVb pottery includes small and
medium-sized non-plastic inclusions. In general, Ulucak pottery contains small to
medium-sized inclusions. Large-sized inclusions are recorded seldom. However, the
amount of inclusions normally range between regularly occurring to abundant. In
general, around 65% of all pottery from the sub-phases included medium-sized
inclusions in their pastes. Interestingly, 20% of Level V pottery have few amounts of
inclusions, while only 12% of IVb pottery had few inclusions in their fabrics.
More than 70% of pottery from each sub-phase was moderately fired, although both low-
fired and hard examples also occur in the assemblages. Sixty-nine percent of all IVb
pottery was moderately fired while 23% are recorded as hard and 8% as low-fired.
Again, in Level V moderately fired examples dominate the assemblage. Hard examples
constitute 17% of the ceramics in sub-phase Vb. These figures indicate that in terms of
firing temperature and technique there was not much change from Vb to IVb.
Porosity is another category
where dissimilarities between
Levels IV and V are observed
(Tab. 4.7). Late IV pottery is
especially fine-porous due to
the small pores left on the
outer and inner surfaces by
the carbonized chaff that was
once present in its paste.
Since the quantity of organic
temper drops dramatically
from Level IV to V, pores on
the surface are not observed anymore on the Level V pottery. Ninety-one percent of Vb
is non-porous, whereas only 62% of IVb pottery is non-porous. Almost 30% of Late IV
ceramics are recorded as fine-porous. Coarse-porous examples are extremely rare, both
in Level IV and V.
Table 4.7: Change in the proportion of porous pottery. Note that there is an increase from Level V to IV in porous pottery due to the use of chaff as temper.
195
Both slip and burnish are surface treatments that are observed on Ulucak pottery. Red
and cream-colored slips are naturally observed on RSBW and CSBW and are mineral
suspensions that are applied to the surface of the pottery. It is suggested that gray ware
and brown burnished ware have “self slips,” meaning they are slipped with clay
suspensions that are made out of the same clay as the vessel body but which is difficult
to distinguish with the naked eye. Burnishing is another surface treatment category that
is observed throughout levels IV-V. Eighty-nine percent of all IVb and 90% of all Vb
pottery is burnished. Smoothed or unburnished examples make up around 8% of the
pottery from these phases. Naturally, burnishing provides bright surfaces to the vessels
while functionally making them waterproof. Bright-surfaced pottery comprises 66% of
IVb pottery whereas 25% is non-bright. Additionally, there are examples that have very
bright surfaces, meaning their surfaces reflect light like a mirror. These make up 6% of
the IVb assemblage. In level V, 65-75% of pottery is bright while 20% is non-bright.
Very bright examples constitute 13% of the pottery in sub-phase Va and their percentage
drops to 5% in the earlier sub-phase of Vb.
Mica glimmer is another surface property observed on Ulucak Neolithic pottery and it
seems to be present in almost every type of clay collected in order to produce the pottery.
However, some examples show more mica glimmer on their surfaces as compared to
others. Twenty-one percent of all Level IV pottery, 27% of all Va pottery and 31% of all
Vb pottery display mica glimmer. The amount of micaceous surfaces decreases through
time, constituting only 16% of the collection in IVb. Mica glimmer is observed on all
major Ulucak wares. Likewise, mottling is also observed on Ulucak pottery. Ten percent
of all Vb pottery have mottled surfaces, usually having orange, cream, red, or brown
hues. The amount of mottled ceramics decreases in Late IV, with only 5% of the IVb
pottery mottled, followed by an increase in the sub-phases of early Level IV.
Ulucak ceramics are characterized by their light oxidized colors that are dominated by
red and orange (Tab. 4.8). Eighty-three percent of IVb pottery has oxidized colors while
17% display non-oxidized colors, like brown, dark brown, dark gray, or black. Oxidized
surface colors have their lowest value in Vb, making up 65% of the assemblage. Among
the light colors seen at Ulucak, orange and red are observed most frequently throughout
the sequence. Red is seen on 37% and orange on 28% of the entire IVb pottery. In Level
V, there is clearly more variety in surface color. Apart from red and orange, brown, light
brown and cream are also encountered in increasing numbers; this is especially true for
196
brown surface colors, which increase considerably. Twenty-eight percent of all Vb
pottery is brown or dark brown-colored, while cream and light brown pottery make up
24% and red only 17% of the assemblage. Cream and light brown-colored pottery
associated with CSBW increases in sub-phase IVh onwards and starts to decline again
with the sudden increase of brown burnished ware in Vb. Also, dark gray, as a surface
color, is observed for the first time in sub-phase IVg, but their numbers always stay very
low throughout the phases. In summary, there is a gradual decrease in inoxidized surface
colors from Level V to IV, which probably indicates the progress being made in the
firing techniques and in controlling the firing atmosphere.
2. Morphology
Analogous to the fabric, is the gradual morphological development seen in the Ulucak
pottery from Level V to Level IV. Most of the major vessel forms are already present in
the earliest levels and continue into the younger phases of the Ulucak Neolithic
sequence. However, Late IV at Ulucak contains vessel shapes that do not appear in the
earlier deposits. This reflects changes in the technology and function of the ceramics.
One of the properties that slightly changes from Level V to IV is the average wall
thickness of the vessels. In general, pottery of Level V has thinner walls than pottery
from Level IV (Tab. 4.9). The average wall thickness in IVb is 4.7 mm, whereas it is
only 3.7 mm in Va and 3.8 mm in Vb. At first glance, this information may sound
Table 4.8: Change in the surface color of Ulucak pottery from Level V to IV. Note that orange and red colors increase steadily from Level V to Level IV.
197
surprising if one tends to interpret the thinner vessel walls of Level V as a hint of
technological superiority. Thin walls naturally indicate a well-advanced ceramic
technology. However, the reason why Level V pottery has thinner walls is not only
related to developed ceramic production but is also a result of the overall smaller size of
the vessels that were produced in Ulucak V.
The size of the vessels, especially the jars with necks, increase through time. It is
reasonable to assume that one needs to build vessels with thicker walls in order to
successfully produce vessels with bigger volumes. It appears that this is the real reason
behind why Level IV vessels on average have thicker walls than vessels from Level V.
As a result, both levels unwaveringly contained substantial amounts of thin-walled
vessels. These thin walls are one of the most typical features of Ulucak Neolithic pottery.
Two hundred and seventy out of 342, 290 out of 387 and 337 out of 653 vessels from
sub-phases Vb, Va and IVb, respectively, have walls that are between 1-4 mm thick. In
other words, 80% of the Vb ceramic assemblage has walls that range from 1-4 mm thick,
while only 19% of the assemblage has thicknesses between 5-8 mm. However, in IVb
53% of all analyzed examples are 2-4 mm thick and 43% are 5-8 mm thick. Only 4% of
the collection is thicker than 9 mm.
There seems to be a correlation between the ware types and wall thicknesses. Compared
to such wares as RSBW, CSBW and red-on-cream ware have thinner walls. The mean
value of wall thicknesses for CSBW in IVb is 3.8 mm while, in the same phase, RSBW
have a mean thickness of 4.8 mm. In Vb, the CSBW reaches 3.6 mm in mean thickness.
Even thinner, are the red-on-cream sherds from IVb, which are only 3.2 mm thin.
Likewise, brown burnished wares are thin-walled, averaging 3.8 mm in thickness in Va
Table 4.9: Change in the wall thicknesses from IVa to Vb. Note that pottery of Level V is thinner than Level IV.
198
and 3.6 mm in thickness in Vb. The maximum wall thickness recorded at Ulucak is 19
mm.
As stated above, in terms of vessel shapes most major forms persist from Level V to IV.
Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with convex profiles, jars with short necks, jars
without necks and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles are recorded in almost every sub-
phase. Both Level V and IV have typical examples of these vessel types. However, there
are also vessel types that do not appear in Early IV and Va-b. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles increase gradually from Level IV to V, increasing from 12 to 33% in the
assemblages and making up one third of the ceramic assemblage in Vb. Deep bowls with
‘s’-shaped profiles also increase in the earlier phases, rising to become 18% of the Level
V assemblage. Open forms with ‘s’-shaped profiles make up almost 40% of Level V
pottery. Bowls with convex profiles increase in Level IV, making up 16% of the ceramic
collection. Additionally, in Level IV certain jar forms remain equal in quantity while
other jar forms increase sharply. This is especially true for jars with necks, which are
considerably rare in earlier levels (appearing in 5% or less of the assemblages) but which
steeply increase in Level IV to include around one-fifth of the entire assemblage.
However, jars with short necks show a slight increase in Level V and jars without necks
appear in Level IV and V in high numbers, constituting 20% of those assemblages.
Anthropomorphic vessels and large-sized jars (or storage jars) are observed only in Late
IV, namely at IVb. Jugs or spouts, though very rare, are solely attested in Level V. One
jug with long and thin tubular lugs was uncovered in Building 30 from Level Vb.
Fragments belonging to possible offering tables were encountered in both levels IV and
V and are made on RSBW, CSBW and coarse wares. There is a slight possibility that
two of the feet, identified as part of the offering tables, were originally figurines.
However, at least three fragments from Level IV are without a doubt fragments of
offering tables. Two braziers, or portable hearths, were found in Level V and one in
Level IVb. In summary, there is a small variety of forms in Level V; it is mostly
composed of bowls or deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, small to medium-sized hole-
mouth jars without necks and jars with short necks, predominantly with globular bellies.
In contrast, in Level IV, there are jar types that are more developed and display necks
that are either flaring or vertical. Long necks that are 3-5 cm long are also frequently
observed and are one of the characteristics of this late stage. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped
199
profiles do persist, although their quantities decrease in Level IV, while bowls with
convex profiles are more numerous at this stage.
The same rim types are seen in both levels IV and V: everted, simple and flattened.
Sharply everted rims are extremely rare in all phases. Everted rims are found in bigger
quantities in Level V, reaching 50% in Va and 62% in Vb. Simple and flattened rims are
quantitatively much less frequent in Level V as compared to Level IV. Simple rims
constitute 30%, and flattened rims only 6%, of the rim types in Level V. In contrast,
simple rims make up almost half of the IVb rim assemblage, while 18% of all rims are
flattened. The increase in everted rims in Level V might be related to the increasing
number of vessel forms with ‘s’-shaped profiles. Flattened rims, although present
throughout the sequence, are more characteristic of Late IV (IVa-f). In particular,
examples that are thicker than 10 mm are mostly seen in IVb. The thickest examples,
with widths larger than 30 mm, are known from IVe, IVg and Va. Flattened rims can be
found on most vessel shapes but they are mostly associated with jars without necks
(44%). However, they are also observed on bowls with convex profiles (11%), jars with
short necks (13%) and jars with everted necks (14%). The average rim diameter
calculated for each building phase is very similar and does not provide evidence for
abrupt changes. In IVb the average value is 16.1 cm while in Vb 16.4 cm. The minimum
and maximum values are also almost identical. Rim diameters that exceed 32 cm are
almost absent in the entire assemblage. Minimum values range from 3-10 cm and large
diameters are clearly not preferred by Ulucak potters.
Unlike the rim types, base types show clear distinction between Levels V and IV. The
most apparent change observed is the stark and abrupt decline of simple flat bases with
Early IV-Level V. With building Phase IVh, disc bases are already present in 82% of the
assemblage. In Vb, 93% of all bases are the disc type and only 4% are simple flat types.
This is clearly a technological aspect that is caused by the difference in manufacturing
technique. Potters of Level V produced the base separately and then attached it to the
body in an advanced stage, while in Level IV, the entire vessel body and base were
manufactured together. In Level IV, 70% of all bases are simple flat bases and 29% are
disc bases. Ring bases are observed very rarely in the entire Ulucak sequence. Three of
the seven ring base examples found were encountered in Level V.
It is observed that base diameters slightly drop in Level V, which might be an outcome
of the smaller vessel sizes seen in this level. The mean value for base diameters in Level
200
IVb is 9.5 cm, whereas it becomes 8.9 cm in Va and 7.9 cm in Vb. Likewise, the
maximum values point to the same trend. In IVb, the maximum diameter measures 20
cm, while this value drops to 13.3 cm in Vb. There is not a meaningful correlation
between vessel shapes and base types. However, there is a tendency of jars without
necks having disc bases and bowls with convex profiles having simple flat bases. The
majority of the bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles seem to also have disc bases.
Another remarkable change in pottery morphology is noticed in lug types. There are four
major lug types seen on Ulucak IV-V vessels; these are vertical tubular lugs, single
knobs, double knobs, and pierced knobs. Double knobs disappear completely by sub-
phase IVi and are not at all observed in Level V (Tab. 4.10). Single knobs are mainly
observed in Level IV, although they do continue into Level V. However, their
percentage drops from 40% in IVb to 7% in Vb. Vertically placed tubular lugs become
more ubiquitous in Level V, making up almost 80% of the lugs analyzed. Their
percentage is only 37% in Level IVb. Tubular lugs are almost the only manufactured lug
type in Level V and are replaced by single knobs and double knobs in Level IV.
Interestingly, in Va and Vb tubular lugs are not only more numerous but also longer than
the ones in IVb. Many long and thin examples are recorded on jars and bowls that are up
to 55 mm long. However, the majority of the tubular lugs from Level V are 31-50 mm in
length. And in Level IV they are usually 10-40 mm long. Thin and long tubular lugs,
usually numbering four and frequently set in pairs, found on jars without necks and
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, are found to be more of a distinguishing trait of Level V
than at IV. However, double-knobs are only seen in Level IV.
Table 4.10: Percentile distribution of lug types. Vertical tubular lugs decrease from Level V to IV. Double knobs do not occur in Level V.
201
Decorated pottery at Ulucak is essentially few in number. The decoration is in most
cases composed of impressions, although plastic, painted, pinched, and, although
doubtful, pattern-burnished examples are also known from the assemblage. Twenty-four
out of 101 impressed pottery pieces recorded for this study originate from Phase IVb.
Only 4.7% of IVb pottery is decorated. The rate of decorated pottery declines sharply
with sub-phase Vb, where only one sherd with plastic decoration is known. Impressed
decoration disappears completely with Vb, although they are present in the previous
building Phase Va (Tab. 4.11). To be exact, the general trend observed is the sharp
decline of decorated pottery in Level Vb and the gradual increase of impressed pottery
from Early IV into Late IV.
Impressions seen on the vessels are of specific shapes. Normally, the entire surface is
covered with impressions and the impressions are shallow and irregular. Most of the
impressions are fingernail impressions or impressions in the shape of short horizontal
lines. Shapes such as semi-circles, tear-drops and triangles are also seen on vessels, as
well as combinations of them. The impressions are either made with finger tips and nails
or with sharp pointed instruments. Shapes such as triangles and tear-drops occur when an
instrument in used to decorate the vessels. Impressed decoration is seen 58% on the
RSBW and 36% on the gray wares. Gray wares are especially associated with this kind
of decoration. Only 3% of the impressed sherds were seen on CSBW.
Painted decoration is mostly seen on small body sherds. Four red-on-cream examples are
recorded in Level IVb and three in Va. However, cream-on-red is recorded in IVh, IVi
Table 4.11: Impressed wares never constitute more than 4% of the pottery assemblage. They are absent in Level Vb.
202
and IVk. This makes us tentatively suggest that this specific ware is more peculiar to
Early IV as opposed to Late IV. Unfortunately, since the number of painted examples is
extremely low at Ulucak, it is not possible to make conclusive arguments on their
chronological positions. Paint on pottery is mostly restricted to single bands that run
diagonally or horizontally and, to a lesser extent, upside-down “V”s. Rim sherds with
painted decoration usually have horizontal bands running right along the rim.
Figure 4.29: At left, a red-slipped sherd with bucranium application. In the middle, a pierced knob as an application of a wavy line. On the right, a pinched bowl from Level Va.
Plastic decorated sherds are also few in Ulucak. One red-slipped body sherd with
bucranium from Early IV and one with thick wavy lines from Vb were found on brown
burnished ware; they are the most articulate examples of plastic decoration found at
Ulucak (Fig. 4.29). Pinching is observed on one bowl with a ‘s’-shaped profile from
Level Va and its entire outer surface is covered with regularly made pinching.
203
Chapter V
Pottery Technology, Function and Organization of Ceramic Production at Neolithic Ulucak
The manufacturing of pottery requires certain steps. These can be reconstructed by
archaeologists to a certain extent by using ethnographical and ethnoarchaeological case
studies and is done so in order to gain insight into the ceramic technology of prehistoric
societies. Focusing on ceramic technology helps to understand and explain a
community’s daily activities, the changes observed in pottery fabric and shapes, some
aspects of social organization, and the interaction of the community with their natural
environment. Moreover, ceramic theory, which is developed as a result of data acquired
during numerous ethnoarchaeological studies, prevents archaeologists from making
simplistic and biased interpretations of their observations and data. It does this by
demonstrating the high variability of production stages and the organization of
production that are utilized by different societies (Kramer 1985; Arnold 1989). In this
section, we will try to re-construct the production chain of ceramic vessels from Ulucak
by combining the available data obtained through our analysis on Ulucak pottery,
ceramic theory and various ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies. The
evaluation of these production steps (chaîne opératoire) should serve to illuminate the
social context of pottery production and particularly the technical choices made by the
potters who act upon the raw materials to create manufactured goods within an already
existing social-cultural environment (van der Leeuw 1993: 242-243). In this respect, it is
crucial to acknowledge the fact that techniques implemented by any given society to
produce material culture are not isolated or free from the social and cultural framework
within which the society operates (Lemonnier 1993: 4-5). Thus, the degree and type of
innovation in the ceramics does not only concern the history of technology as a separate
204
unit of research, but most certainly encompasses an outcome of the change occurred in
the whole society.
In the second part of Chapter V, on the discussion whether ceramic specialists existed at
Neolithic Ulucak, Costin (2000) will be used as the main source because it provides a
detailed survey on definition and identification of craft specialization. With the help of
this detailed work we will try to seek the parameters identified by Costin in the ceramic
data from Ulucak and determine to what degree and to what extent Ulucak IV-V
ceramics were produced by specialists. Additionally, the model developed by Perlès
(1992) on organization of production by Neolithic communities of mainland Greece acts
as an example for our purposes. Her study stands as the only well-constructed model on
the Aegean Neolithic that treats some elements of the material culture as products of
specialized action.
Finally, a section on the functions of pottery from Ulucak IV-V will be presented in light
of our own research results.
The main production stages of pottery that are detailed in this chapter are as follows
(Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993: 114): procurement of raw materials, preparation of raw
materials, forming the vessel, pre-firing treatments, firing, and post-firing treatments.
A. Procurement of Raw Materials
A number of raw materials are required to produce ceramic vessels. The most apparent
of these is clearly clay, but clay by itself will not suffice for manufacturing vessels.
Temper, water and fuel for the firing process are as significant as clay in ceramic
production. Additionally, other types of clays, pigments and organic or mineral matters
used for slips and paints are also needed (Rice 1987: 115). Communities or potters are
knowledgeable about the clay sources that are in proximity to their settlement, as well as
of the whereabouts of other substances (such as temper or pigments) they prefer to use
while manufacturing. In terms of the Ulucak pottery, clay is found in abundance around
the settlement. The Nif riverbed is one of the possible locations where clay was mined;
however, there might be other clay deposits that were preferred by the community.
The proximity of clay sources to the settlement where pottery is produced is an
important parameter for the people who collect and transport clay. Theoretically, the
energy and time invested in clay collection and transport should not exceed the time-
205
energy investment for pottery production. Ethnographical studies show that most clay
sources are within a 1-3 km distance to the settlement (Arnold: 1989: 32-33; see table
5.1 in Rice 1987: 116). For example, traditional potters of Gökeyüp, a village close to
Manisa-Salihli, use two clay sources that are both within a two hour walk to the village
(Crane 1988: 15). Another ethnographically recorded traditional potter village at Uslu, in
Erzurum, reveals that potters exploit five clay sources that are from 0.5 to 5 km away
from the settlement (Angle and Dottarelli 1989: 470). Technological properties of clay,
such as its plasticity, amount of non-plastics already present in it and its workability
and/or homogeneity, might also affect which clay sources are exploited by a given
community (Arnold 1989: 20-21). Additionally, there might be social, cultural and
ideological parameters behind which clay sources are exploited (Costin 2000: 381).
Clearly, a variety of factors play a role in the choice of clay sources that are mined.
Nonetheless, when clay sources are socially-culturally available to the potters, the
technical properties of the clay and the distance to the production center seem to be the
most significant parameters.
Similarly, temper sources, whether organic or mineral, are found to be available within
the immediate territory surrounding the settlement. Slip or material used for paint can be
procured from distances farther than 3 km, and in some recorded cases are located even
more than 50 km from the settlement. In such instances, the possibility of regional
exchange systems can be considered since potters would under normal circumstances not
invest that much time and energy in procuring pigments. Otherwise, since such
substances are needed less often than clay and are lighter, making them easier to
transport, sources within 10 km can still be frequented by potters. One such trip by the
potter or families might provide enough raw materials for the entire pottery production
season. For instance, potters of Acatlan, in Mexico, purchase their annual paint need
(100 kg) with one trip to the source (Arnold 1989: 37).
Chemical analysis of ceramics from Ulucak IV showed that at least seven different clay
sources might have been exploited for pottery manufacturing (Liritzis 2005). It is
apparent that by Ulucak IV the community had good knowledge of the available clay
sources in the vicinity and which ones were suitable for use. It is possible that different
clays were mixed in order to obtain the desired plasticity and clay property at Ulucak;
this is the case with Türkönü potters, who mix clay with high plastic content with a clay
low in plastics to gain a clay composition of their aspiration (Crane 1988: 11). The
206
macroscopic observations made on Ulucak IV-V pottery persuades us to suggest that the
same clay sources were used during both settlement levels. The paste of pottery from
both levels is fairly homogeneous in structure and inclusions. Fully-oxidized clay at
Ulucak turns red and is especially observed in ceramics found in Building 8, which was
heavily destroyed by fire. The red color of the cores must have been achieved by this
secondary fire. However, other oxidized cores, which were achieved during the primary
firing process, are either light brown or orange. This color appears when the raw clay
contains 1.5-3% of iron-oxides (Rice 1987: 335). The clays used for Ulucak pottery
seem to contain mica particles as well as fine sand. Crushed rocks and chaff are
definitely used as real temper. Chaff as temper is especially typical for Level IV, while
pottery from Level V is tempered to a great extent with sand or small grit. Nevertheless,
mica is present in both levels. The mica wash effect observed on mica glimmer ware in
Level Vb is seemingly not a result of the natural clay properties but rather an intention of
the potter. The material used for temper at Ulucak is readily available to the community;
in example, chaff is a by-product of agricultural production while rocks exist in the
immediate vicinity.
What is important for Ulucak pottery are the substances used for slips, such as the red
and cream slips that are applied to the surfaces. It is not known what kinds of minerals
were used to obtain these slips. However,
one big lump of red-colored material that
was hardened through fire and has mat
impressions was found at Ulucak IV.
Evidence for red ochre comes from a quern
that has red residues of ochre in it and was
preserved from the same level (Fig. 5.1). It
is possible that lumps of clay were stored in
the settlement, wrapped in a mat to be
processed later. Certain clay types might
have been used to obtain the necessary clay
suspension to be used as a slip. In light of the quern discovered with red material,
another possibility is that red ochre, meaning hematite mixed with clay, was used as the
substance for slips. For instance, at Hacılar and Achilleion, hematite was utilized to
create the red slips on the pottery (Stoves and Hodges 1970: 144; Ellis 1989: 168
respectively). Iron-oxides were utilized extensively in prehistoric Turkey for painting
Figure 5.1: Mortar with residues of red ochre, possibly used to produce slip (Ulucak IVb).
207
caves or rocks, as evidenced at the Upper Paleolithic Üçağızlı Cave (Déroche, Menu and
Walter 1995) or at the Latmos rock paintings (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003: 33). Therefore,
it is highly likely that the red color of the slips on Ulucak pottery was caused by iron-
oxides, probably hematite mixed with clay. It is known that other hydrous-oxides, such
as limonite or magnetite, also turn red when fired; therefore, the possibility that they
were also used for slips cannot be ruled out either (Shepard 1980: 38). Red color is also a
consequence of oxidized firing conditions.
There are various types of fuel that can be used for the firing process, including wood,
shrubs, dung, tree bark, crushed olives, or grass. For example, Gökeyüp potters preferred
scrub oak for open firing their ceramics (Crane 1988: 18). The kind of material used by
Ulucak potters cannot be ascertained. Wood should have been available to the
community on the slopes of the Nif Mountain, which is today still covered with
evergreen shrubs, pine and oak trees.
In light of the ethnographic record, it is usually assumed that pottery production takes
place during the dry season, meaning during the summer in the Mediterranean region. At
villages around Ödemiş pottery production is under way from March to November
(Crane 1988: 10), while in Cyprus traditional pottery production begins following Easter
(London 2000: 103). Dry weather and low humidity are conditions necessary to both
drying the produced vessels before firing and to ensure an uninterrupted firing process,
which is vital to obtain good results. Weather conditions, not only temperature but also
the presence of humidity or wind, are factors affecting the length and success of the pre-
firing drying process whose aim is to dispose of the water surrounding the clay particles
(Arnold 1989: 62). Cracks may occur in cases of rapid or unequal drying of the different
vessel parts. Therefore, it can be assumed that at Ulucak, pottery was likewise produced
in the late spring-summer months to ensure good results.
Since the storing of clay for long periods of time is not usually practiced, the mining of
clay and the procurement and preparation of temper, pigments and paint might have also
taken place towards the dry season. Additionally, there are cases from different parts of
the world where clay sources are inundated during the wet season, making them
inaccessible (Arnold 1989: 62). As a result, there is more than one reason why pottery
production theoretically has to be practiced during the dry season. The whole process of
production, from raw material procurement to firing, requires dry weather patterns.
208
Another aspect of raw material procurement is the form of organization that was required
by the community to collect such raw material. This communal organization may have
called for certain individuals to take care of this task, or certain sexes or perhaps required
everyone to take part in the collecting and transporting of clay. With the available
archaeological data it is not possible to ascertain the details of these initial raw material
procurement activities. Ethnographic records present us with extreme variety and it is
hard to find meaningful regulations between, say small-sized sedentary agricultural
populations and the organization of clay mining. It can be the potters themselves who are
mining, or small groups from different households or groups from the same household.
For instance, in the Philippines a sexual division of labor for raw material procurement is
ethnographically confirmed (Costin 2000: 392). In Ulucak’s case, it can be suggested
that transportation was made on foot with the help of baskets or other kinds of
containers. Given that the clay sources lay within 1-3 km radius of the settlement, a
small group of people of varying ages and sexes might have transported the material in
one day by making several trips to the source or various sources.
B. Preparation of Raw Materials
Clay can be stored for a short time at the settlement in the open air, in courtyards or in
pits. Normally, following extraction and transportation of clay to the production area,
clay is cleaned of macro-impurities such as roots, organic material or rocks. This is done
by hand or by using more complex and time-consuming activities like sieving or
levigation. Another common preparation process is adding material, most typically
water, other types of clays and temper, to the original clay. It is common practice to mix
clays in many pre-modern pottery production technologies. Mixing clays of varying
properties, compositions and plasticity may provide better workability. In order to ensure
that temper is regularly distributed in the clay body, to eliminate air pockets and to create
a homogenous clay composition, the clay is kneaded, wedged and/or treaded. Which of
these activities, or combination of activities, is practiced depends on the volume of clay
worked. Normally, for large amounts of clay food trampling is practiced, while kneading
is practiced with smaller amounts of clay (Rice 1987: 119). For instance, traditional
potters in villages around Sardis spend 4-5 days for wedging.
The next step is actually optional and is called “aging.” This term basically means that
the prepared clay is put aside to rest, in order to provide better workability by making it
more plastic. Aging of the clay may take anywhere from one day to one year depending
209
on the preference of the potters and the tradition. Traditional potters at Kornos, on
Cyprus, do not age the clay at all prior to shaping (London 1989: 221).
It is known that different clay sources were exploited by Ulucak potters, however, it is
not known whether they practiced clay mixing for better results. In any case, sand, chaff
and, to a lesser extent, crushed rocks and lime particles were added to the clay body as
real temper. One can state that Ulucak IV potters used chaff frequently, as 63% of IVb
pottery contains organic temper.
In the earlier settlement of Level V, chaff was not added to the clay; instead, mineral
inclusions were preferred such as sand and small grits or quartz. Certain amounts of
mica and fine-grained sand can already be present in mined clay. At Ulucak, this is
especially true for mica which seems to be naturally occurring in the clays collected by
the potters. In both levels, the size of temper is small to medium with regularly occurring
amounts; meaning, 10-20% of the non-plastics existed in the clay after preparation was
complete. However, for the mica glimmer ware of Level V, crushed mica schist may
have been added separately to the clay, especially to the surface to acquire the silvery
shine that distinguishes this ware from the other fabrics.
In a small-sized, sedentary and agro-
pastoral community, such as the one
inhabited at Ulucak V, each household
could produce its own pottery vessels,
as needed. This is suggested by the fact
that there was no activity area one
would specifically designate as a
“communal pottery workshop” at
Ulucak V. However, one activity area
from IVc, Building 15, was associated
with pottery production based on clay
lumps that were found in its fill (Fig.
5.2). These lumps, or loaves, were found right next to a platform that was located in an
area with lithic tools and many grinding and pounding instruments. The clay lumps
were clearly fired and hardened during the fire that destroyed the building. These pieces
indicate that at Neolithic Ulucak clay was cleaned, tempered and probably kneaded on a
Figure 5.2: Loaf of clay prepared to be used for production of clay objects. Found in Building 15 (IVc) next to a clay platform and grinding stones. Fire that destroyed the building also hardened this loaf.
210
grinding stone before they were formed into lumps of clay to be shaped on a flat stone or
platform used as batt. Based on the mat impressions found on the clay lumps, it is
suggested that they were also wrapped around mats prior to their shaping. It is possible
that clay lumps were left to age before further processing. The color of the clay lumps
found in this area is red-reddish brown but the color of the unfired clay may have been
another color. It is a well-known fact that there is little correlation between the color of
raw and fired clay. Yellow, red, brown, gray, or black-colored raw clays might turn red
when fired (see Table 11.1 in Rice 1987: 334). Therefore, it is not possible to conclude
at this stage that Ulucak potters preferred red clays. However, what is clear is that clay
lumps were prepared as loaves and probably left to age in the activity areas before they
were worked into objects.
C. Forming the Vessel
There are several basic building methods for hand-made pottery vessels; these are
pinching, drawing, molding, casting, slab modeling, and coiling. Usually, manufacturing
one vessel requires implementing a combination of these techniques, while there is only
one base manufacturing technique that is preferred by the potters. Pinching is a
technique suitable for building small and simple-shaped vessels. Likewise, drawing is
more appropriate for small vessels built from one single lump of clay; however, the
drawing technique may allow bigger vessels to be built (Rice 1987: 124-125). Both of
these techniques could have been implemented at Ulucak for building simple bowls or
miniature vessels.
Ulucak pottery was typically slipped and burnished so that traces of manufacturing
techniques did not preserve on the surface. Coil attachments are rarely left with slightly
uneven surfaces that can be felt with the fingertips; this is especially true on rim sherds
but also on bases. Coiling seems to be the preferred base technique used by Ulucak
potters. Technological analyses conducted on Neolithic pottery from the Aegean Region
demonstrates that coil building, slab manufacturing and pinching were techniques that
were practiced by Neolithic communities. Eslick (1992: 77) asserts that coil building
was the base manufacturing technique at the Elmalı Plain sites. At Nea Nikomedeia,
both coiling and pinching, in some cases a combination of them, could be attested on
Neolithic pottery (Pyke and Yiouni 1996: 60-61). While slab manufacture was preferred
by Sesklo potters, coiling was the primary technique at Neolithic Ilıpınar (Wijnen 1993:
324). At Franchthi and Lerna, coiling was also detected (Perlès 2001: 211). With the
211
available data at hand, it is apparent that coiling and pinching are the two primary
techniques utilized by pottery producers in the Aegean Neolithic.
Breaks observed on carinated flat bases and necks point more towards the use of molds
for bases and slab building for necks; the latter are separately manufactured and attached
to the body at a later stage. It is possible that two techniques, coiling and slab building,
were used for manufacturing bigger vessels, while coiling alone was preferred for bowls
and jars without necks or jars with short necks. Oval bases were also formed separately
using a mold and then were attached to the body.
Asymmetrical body forms, seen especially on large-sized vessels at Ulucak IV, indicate
that potters were having problems with building large vessels. Repair holes observed on
the biggest vessel from Ulucak IV support this statement. As already mentioned,
carinated flat bases were definitely manufactured separately from the vessel body, as
observed many times from the way they broke at the juncture. Attaching different body
parts to a vessel requires a considerable amount of time because of the necessary drying
intervals, especially if the vessel is large (Arnold 1989: 65). One large vessel, similar to
the two storage jars (61 and 82 cm high) known from Ulucak IVb, might have taken one
week or more to complete. Eslick (1992: 17) suggests that the typical flattened rims from
West Anatolia were formed by pressing the thumb over the rim and supporting the vessel
body with the index finger.
Thinning and evening of vessel walls was the next stage in the production sequence and
could require re-wetting of the surface many times. This stage formed a significant part
of the vessel’s production, both technically and stylistically, because it served to better
attach the coils together, provided a smooth vessel surface, aided in wall thinning, and
removed traces of manufacture, pores, depressions, and cracks (Shepard 1980: 65-66).
Since most pottery from Ulucak IV-V has walls that are 3-6 mm thin, thinning was a
production step that required developed skills and considerable labor investment.
There are several ways of thinning the vessels, of which scraping and paddle-anvil
techniques the most widespread. Ulucak pottery occasionally shows traces of the paddle
and anvil techniques on their outsides and insides. However, it is difficult to demonstrate
if scraping was also practiced, and if its traces were later covered with paddling,
smoothing and burnishing processes. Striation marks have also been observed on a few
212
restricted forms whose inner surfaces were left untreated. These marks show up on
pieces from both Level IV and V, and indicate scraping was practiced by Ulucak potters.
Ethnographic records demonstrate that these thinning activities might have been reserved
for individuals other than the actual potter who formed the vessel (Costin 2000: 391).
Ulucak potters and their possible “assistants” seem to have had extensive experience and
required skills for this production stage. Successful production of such thin vessels,
whether small or large, indicates that along with striving for functionality, there was a
special care that was devoted to the appearance of the vessels.
Other plastic applications to the body, such as
lugs, knobs and decoration, were also
separately manufactured and attached to the
body (Fig. 5.3). For each vessel several
production steps were necessary. The body
was probably constructed and then left to dry
while the lugs or neck were manufactured.
The absence of mat impressions on the bottom
of the bases indicates that flat stones were
rather selected for and used as batts, which are archaeologically represented at the site.
Tubular lugs were made with small lumps of clay and their form was shaped before
application. The surface of the vessel, where the lugs or knobs would be attached, were
first grooved and roughened so that the two parts would easily join one another. After
their application, the lugs were then pierced.
D. Pre-firing Treatments
Following the formation of the vessel and the
thinning of its walls, other surface treatments
were usually applied to improve the surface
quality and appearance. Smoothing, slipping
and burnishing are the most prevalent surface
treatments that are known from the Aegean
Neolithic. As a rule, Ulucak vessels are
burnished with a smooth hard object;
probably with the polished stones found
Figure 5.3: Attachment of a tubular lug to the body shows that the lug was produced separately and attached to the vessel body.
Figure 5.4: Three sided polishing stone found in the destruction debris of Building 40 (Level Vf).
213
during the excavations (Fig. 5.4). Burnishing makes the surface more compact and
waterproof while giving the surface a luster. To achieve this desired effect, it is
important to apply burnishing at a point when the clay is neither too wet nor too dry
(Shepard 1980: 123). Generally, it should be done when the clay is leather-hard or
completely dry. Based on both technical necessity and appearance, burnishing is a
preferred treatment.
Traces of burnishing processes were observed many times on Ulucak vessels in the form
of horizontal, diagonal or vertical surface marks. The orientation of the burnishing marks
depends on how the potter holds the finished vessel, his/her motor habits, and naturally,
the size and shape of the vessel. Burnishing was a time-consuming process for Ulucak
potters as it covered the entire outer surface, as well as the inner surface, of unrestricted
vessels. Most of the time the results are successful, meaning the vessels will have bright
to very bright surfaces. However, burnished pieces that have non-bright surfaces also
occasionally appear because their luster can be lost through clay shrinkage or during the
firing process (Shepard 1980: 191). The burnishing process also has a side-effect in
which it moves the fine particles in the clay towards the surface. Mica glimmer, as
observed on some Ulucak RSBW, CSBW and gray ware, may be a result of this process.
Slipping is another surface treatment observed on several Ulucak wares and when it is
present it generally covers the whole surface of the Ulucak vessels. Slip is defined as the
suspension of clay in water. It is applied to change the surface color of a vessel and to
make the vessel less permeable by covering its tiny pores and depressions. Red and
cream-white-colored slips were used by Ulucak potters. The slip on Ulucak pottery was
identified through macroscopic inspection. The slip coating can form a visible separate
layer over the vessel’s surface that is clearly distinguishable from the clay body. In many
cases two layers of different colored clays, one for the body and one for the coat, are
visible. Clay that makes up the body is either orange or brown, while slips are either red
or white-cream. Red slip was probably obtained through mixing hematite with clay,
while white slip might have been obtained from kaolin. It is observed at Ulucak that the
slips have adhered well to the vessel bodies. This is especially true for cream-colored
slips which are thicker but also tend to crack and craze. Likewise, some red-colored slips
showed cracks, but these might have occurred post-depositionally. Finally, the technique
of slip application could not be determined at Ulucak. The lack of traces might point to
the application of slips with a brush.
214
Lugs or other plastic applications were
applied to the vessels prior to their final
surface treatments since they also bare the
traces of slip and burnish. Only some
impressed vessels were not burnished and
slipped. In some cases, especially with
RSBW, impressions were executed after
other surface treatments (Fig. 5.5). The
impressions were made using a pointed
instrument, finger nails, shells, wooden
sticks, or stone tools, and usually covered the entire surface of a body sherd or a vessel.
Paint is rarely observed on Ulucak vessels. The red paint or cream paint observed on
vessels seems to be made out of the same material as the slips because their color and
structure greatly resemble one another. Although technologically, Ulucak potters were
knowledgeable about painting decorations, they rarely did this.
After the surface treatments were completed, the vessels were left to dry. The drying
process eradicates the physical water present in the clay before firing and the firing then
eliminates the chemical water present in the clay. The necessary time for drying differs
from one tradition to the other. In many cases it is one to two days, although it can also
take up to one week or even one month (Rice 1987: 153). The amount of non-plastics is
another factor that affects the total time allotted to drying. It is known that the more non-
plastics there are in the clay, the less time is spent on drying (Arnold 1989: 97). Vessels
may be left to dry in the sun and/or shade, although perhaps there were no pre-
designated locations for drying ceramic vessels. However, it is clear that quick or uneven
shrinkage of a vessel may result in the formation of cracks. Likewise, dry weather
conditions are absolutely necessary for this stage as humidity retards drying and causes
deformations. Therefore, vessels are carefully watched, relocated and examined during
the drying process to avoid breakage or cracks. This task requires the presence of one or
more individuals.
Theoretically, if agricultural activities and pottery production had to be practiced in the
same season (e.g. summer), then scheduling conflicts would be created and ultimately
would result in a sexual division of labor. This means women would have to deal with
ceramic production, since women are generally associated with “low risk tasks close to
Figure 5.5: The material used as red slip is applied on this rimsherd only to the rim area while the rest was left unslipped but impressed.
215
home” and men with high risk tasks that are distant from home (Eriksen 2001: 128). As
a result, women might have to stay at home and supervise the drying process while
undertaking other tasks, such as taking care of children, cooking or spinning. Such a
correlation is clearly demonstrated from ethnographic research that revealed that 31 out
of the 37 studied agricultural societies in Central and South America had female potters
(Arnold 1989: 103-105). Nevertheless, in the absence of scheduling conflicts such
correlations based on sexual divisions of labor cannot be inferred.
In the case of Ulucak, a gender-based division of labor might easily have occurred since
most labor-intensive and critical agricultural activities were practiced during the summer
and fall (i.e. harvesting wheat and barley). A division of labor between men and women
could have allowed for both activities to be simultaneously accomplished by the
community. If this was the case, women who overtook the task of pottery production
could have also trained their daughters. But given the fact that the work in the fields
requires more labor force than is available, women and children joined the work force
for the simple reason that subsistence takes precedence over ceramic production (Arnold
1989: 100). However, there are other factors which undermine the above mentioned
assumptions. If the rainfall and humidity are not extreme during spring and winter
pottery production could have been practiced year-round, such as in some parts of
Pakistan and Greece, which removes the necessity of a sexual division of labor (see
Arnold 1989: Table 3.1).
Another important factor that affects the organization of production is the amount of
ceramic vessels produced annually by each household. Estimations made on Greek EN
sites revealed low rates of production ranging from 5 to 90 pots (Perlès 2001: 214). For
instance, it is suggested that at Nea Nikomedeia 25-90 vessels were annually produced
(Pyke and Yionu 1996: 185). At Gökeyüp, where female potters produced vessels using
the coiling technique, Crane (1988: 17-18) reports that in six to eight hours one potter
could easily produce 20 güveç (cooking pots) and 15-20 bardak (beakers). Three to
fourteen hours were necessary for building vessels of different sizes with the coiling
technique for potters of Shipibo-Conibo and three to seven days were elapsed until they
were fired individually and ready to be used (see Arnold 1989: Table 8.1). These figures
indicate that the pottery requirements of one household can be produced in a short time
period. If during the Neolithic low production rates were indeed prevalent, then there
would not appear to be any scheduling conflicts since, given that optimal weather
216
conditions were available, actual pottery production (i.e. forming, drying and firing)
would last only 2-3 weeks.
At Ulucak, there is one interesting case where all the vessels in one house (Building 30)
were found preserved completely in situ. In this building, 15 ceramic vessels of varying
types and sizes were recovered and provide us with a good indication of the number of
vessels one household possessed at one time. Similarly, 7-8 vessels were recovered in
Building 8 (IVb) which was destroyed by fire. Annual production can only be equal to or
smaller than this figure since broken vessels needed to be replaced. For instance, among
Kalinga of the Philippines 6-12 pots are produced by a single household to replace the
broken ones; while only 2-5 are produced annually by Tarahumara of Mexico, who
possess 7-19 pots per household (Arnold 1989: Table 6.4). Even if we generously
assume that each household produced 10-15 vessels annually, this would make around
only 120-180 pots for the 15 houses belonging to settlement IVb. In other words, despite
the time-consuming coiling technique and finishing techniques, each household was able
to produce its own ceramic vessel needs in 1-2 weeks. This would neither demand full-
time specialists nor a sexual division of labor. This model is especially plausible for
Ulucak V, where large-sized vessels that demanded weeks to complete are completely
absent. Labor intensive surface finishing practices required by some Ulucak vessels
might even have been a result of low production rates which then allowed enough time
for such investments. As a result, both ethnographic and archaeological data indicate that
at Ulucak pottery production rates were low, meaning scheduling conflicts were avoided
and each household could produce its own needs as long as know-how and skills were
available to the individuals (see also G. Degree of specialization).
E. Firing
Firing, a physical and chemical process that turns clay into ceramic, is an irreversible
final step. It is highly critical for the successful production of pottery. When the shaped
vessels are dry, they are then ready to be fired. Although right before firing, the vessels
may additionally be pre-heated close to a hearth or oven; this is generally an optional
step that but might be necessary for open fires.
There are two major ways of firing pottery: open firing and kiln firing. For both
procedures substantial amounts of fuel is needed. Fuel should create temperatures of
about 550°C so that clay is chemically transformed into ceramics. Various types of fuels
217
have varying burning properties, like the maximum temperature they can reach, the
length of their burn, and the type of smoke and ash they produce. All these factors can
determine whether a firing process is successful or not (Shepard 1980: 77). For instance,
in 40 minutes dung can reach 900°C but its cooling process is very rapid and therefore
could impede complete firing or oxidization. Similarly, grass can reach high
temperatures but also loses heat quickly. On the other hand, juniper wood reaches 900°C
in only 21 minutes and its cooling-off process is very slow and gradual without the
fluctuations in temperature that might be sought after by the potters (see Shepard 1980:
Fig. 4). However, it should not be concluded that wood is superior to dung as fuel
material or vice versa. Different potters preferred different fuel and the choice may have
depended on ecological factors as much as the firing technique employed or the desired
end result (Arnold 1993: 31).
For EN pottery from Greece, it is usually assumed that open firings (i.e. bonfires) or pit
firing, were the main firing technique used (Wijnen 1982: 24; Perlès 2001: 213). Pottery
from Sesklo is said to be fired below 812°C and similarly, Early Neolithic pottery from
Nea Nikomedeia is estimated to be fired under 800°C; both sites employed open fires
(Pyke and Youni 1996: 70).
Archaeological evidence for pottery baking in ovens is seldom verified. Theoretically,
ovens located inside the houses would not be used for this purpose because of the high
danger of accidental fire. Ovens in open areas, in courtyards or areas close to the
settlement may have been used to fire pottery and are actually seen in different parts of
Southeast Europe during the Neolithic (Petrasch 1986: 49). Petrasch (1986: 49) points
out that since the atmosphere in such ovens cannot be controlled, the results must look
similar to open-fired ceramics. On the contrary, Arnold asserts that oven firing can create
higher temperatures than open firing. More importantly, he asserts that although the draft
and atmosphere cannot be fully controlled, oven structures provide insulation and
thereby keep the heat inside longer, making the products less vulnerable to the weather
conditions (Arnold 1989: 214). Additionally, oven firing requires less fuel than open
firing. According to Arnold (1989: Table 8.4), the ratio of ceramics to fuel, in terms of
weight, is 1:3.1 in open fire and 1:2.8-2.5 in oven firing. Therefore, technologically oven
firing can be considered more advanced than open firing but the question of whether
Neolithic pottery was oven or open fired remains disputed. Since direct archaeological
evidence cannot be recognized in most cases or is so sporadic for oven firing, it is
218
commonly assumed that the primary technique of firing Neolithic pottery was by
bonfire.
Open fires are effective in terms of firing pottery but are not without their disadvantages,
such as their relatively short duration of maximum heat, their tendency for incomplete
or uneven firing, their susceptibility to weather conditions (e.g. wind), and the mottling
and fire clouds they can produce on their end products (Rice 1987: 155-157). Neolithic
pottery from West Anatolia and mainland Greece, having moderate hardness, inoxidized
cores, mottled surfaces, and fire clouding, should have been fired in open fires that could
have reached temperatures of up to 900°C, but were found to have mainly been fired at
ranges between 600-850°C. There is one big oven located in an open area in Ulucak IVa
that might have been used for pottery baking but direct archaeological evidence eludes
us. Almost all ovens excavated at Ulucak are located in houses, which prevents their
identification as pottery ovens. Finally, no pottery kilns were found at Neolithic Ulucak.
Macroscopically Ulucak pottery has all the characteristics of openly fired containers.
Mottling and sooting are frequently observed on Ulucak wares, the former resulting from
irregular firing atmospheres while the latter from contact with fuel. The amount of
sooted pottery increases in Level IV to V from 4 to 8%, whereas mottling is observed on
5% of IVb pottery and 10% of Vb pottery. Clearly, Level V pottery had to go through a
less developed firing procedure, where potters had a hard time controlling the firing
atmosphere, duration, temperature, and other conditions. By Level IV, there is clearly a
technological improvement in terms of the firing process, which dramatically reduced
the number of mottled and sooted vessels (although they could never have been entirely
eliminated).
Another piece of evidence that supports the open fire argument for Ulucak pottery is the
high number of inoxidized cores present in the assemblage. Open fires, since they are of
a brief duration (i.e. typically lasting 2-3 hours), may succeed in oxidizing the surface of
a vessel but fail in fully oxidizing the core. In this situation, the result is a dark-colored
core or a three-layered core with an inoxidized center. Dark cores usually result from
carbonaceous material in the clay, which due to inadequate temperature, duration and
atmosphere could not combine with oxygen by forming CO2, and therefore cannot
escape the clay (Rice 1987: 334). At Ulucak, 66% of Early IV pottery is inoxidized and
an additional 15% is incompletely oxidized. In Level V, 60% is inoxidized while 14% is
incompletely oxidized. When contrasted with oxidized surface colors, which make up
219
83% of the assemblage in IVb, these figures clearly indicate a similar scenario for
Ulucak ceramics, where open firing manages to oxidize the surfaces but fails to oxidize
the cores.
The firing temperature is also important for the end result. One way of estimating the
firing temperature is to make observations on calcitic inclusions in the paste, such as
shells, limestone or calcite (Rice 1987: 97-98). At Ulucak, lime is occasionally found in
the paste and in some cases observed on the surface because it spalls the clay body when
fired at certain temperatures. It is known that calcite decomposes when fired at around
850-900°C and at that point it changes its chemical composition from CaCO3 to
CaO+CO2. If, after reaching the aforementioned temperature range, there is a drop in the
temperature, the calcite will pick up moisture from the air and become what is called
“quicklime” (Ca[OH]2). In turn, this will put stress on the walls and surface of the
pottery, resulting in volume expansion (Rice 1987: 98). The lime particles observed in
the paste or on the surface of some Ulucak pottery is a result of this process. If the firing
temperature is below 700°C or exceeds 1000°C rehydration does not occur, meaning
there will also be no expansion of the volume.
There are additional lines of evidence that can
be used to argue for rather low temperatures at
Ulucak. The bright surfaces seen on more than
70% of Ulucak’s ceramic assemblage can be
used as evidence for low temperatures (below
1000°). Shepard (1980: 124) makes it clear that
there is a correlation between shiny surfaces
and firing temperature; he asserts that the
higher the firing temperature, the less the
surface is lustrous. Hence, the great majority of
Ulucak pottery speaks for temperatures below
900-1000°C. Non-bright examples from
Ulucak, which could have been the result of
high firing temperatures, make up roughly 20-
25% of the assemblage. If Ulucak potters were
aware of this correlation through their long-
term experimentation, they might not have craved achieving the high firing temperatures
Figure 5.6: Heavily burnt anthropomorphic vessel found in Building 8.
220
that would cost them their shining surfaces; because they created these lustrous surfaces
by high labor investments during the formation processes.
More evidence for low firing temperatures is seen in the red fracture colors of vessels
that were exposed to extreme heat (i.e. secondary firing) before their final deposition.
Red fracture colors are solely detected on vessels that are very hard, have matte surfaces,
are cracked, and are covered with a transparent whitish layer. For instance, the
anthropomorphic vessel found in Building 8 of IVb carries all these characteristics, as do
all the other vessels found in the same building (Fig. 5.6). What does this tell us? First,
since red clay color is not normally observed on other Ulucak vessels, these were not
fired at temperatures that would create a red fracture color. Secondly, the temperature
that fired these vessels in Building 8 caused that red surface color to disappear. Rice
points out (1987: 335) that red color created by iron compounds is not stable if fired
above 1000°C. This means that the matte pottery with red fractures found in Building 8
was secondarily fired at temperatures above 1000°C. This is a stark contrast to the
normal pottery from Ulucak, which is incompletely inoxidized, has oxidized cores, is
bright, and has red-colored surfaces. Once again, if Ulucak potters made the observation
that red color disappears when fired above certain temperatures, then they might have
intentionally kept firing temperatures below 1000°C.
As a result of these observations concerning Ulucak pottery, we propose that the usual
firing temperatures at Ulucak were roughly around 700-900°C. Temperatures around
700-800°C seem feasible but are not a rule; higher temperatures were clearly achieved as
suggested by lime spalling, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Another implication
made by our observations is that firing in low temperatures might have been intended by
the potters to make sure that red color and brightness do not get lost, the former was
obtained by preparation of a special clay suspension and the latter by a time-consuming
and skill-requiring polishing process. After all, to achieve oxidized cores was probably
not the primary concern of the potters nor was it significant to the community, as it
would not provide any additional technological advantages to the user. On the contrary,
physical appearance, surface color and brightness were important to the potters and
community.
Evidently, not every open fire can reach the same temperature or duration, and fire
conditions will clearly vary. Technological advances observed on the Ulucak IV pottery
might not necessarily point to higher firing temperatures reached by that period but are
221
evidence for better control of the overall firing process, especially concerning the firing
atmosphere. This improvement in firing management should have resulted from
continuous experimentation with different clays, tempers, paints, fuel type, and the
laying out of the fire, as well as through good judgment of weather conditions. Increase
in the variety of forms and vessel size likewise speak for technological improvement in
pottery production.
Generally, time allotted to the open firing of vessels ranges from 45 minutes to a few
hours depending on, among other things, the amount of pottery to be fired. As low
production rates are deemed as much more plausible for Neolithic periods, due to the
low number of ceramics uncovered in Level V, the duration of fires should accordingly
be rather short. It is even possible that pots were fired singly or in small numbers, as they
are produced, and were done so without stacking. Therefore, small pits with ashes or
evidence of fire might also have served for pottery firing. Alternatively, the complete
annual production of vessels might have been fired all at once through a good
preparation of fuel and under optimal weather conditions.
Finally, we should stress the fact that risk is involved every time pottery is fired. Loss
rates for open firing range from 0-100% (Rice 1987: 173). This means that there is
always a possibility that the major part of or, in the worst case, the complete production
will be destroyed during firing. In turn, this would inevitably prolong the pottery
production season. Such risks are one of the major reasons why in many traditional
societies pottery production and individuals practicing it are associated with witchcraft
and taboos.
F. Post-firing Treatments
Successfully fired ceramic vessels are removed from the firing area when the potter
decides that the firing process came to an end and/or vessels are cooled enough. There is
no mandatory post-firing treatment, although some traditional societies apply various
substances or decorate vessels after firing. At Ulucak, there is no obvious indication of
such a practice. Decoration was executed before firing.
G. Degree of Specialization
As rightly stressed by Costin (1991), for archaeologists and exciting as it is, the issue of
craft specialization in prehistoric societies has been subject to hyper-simplification. This
222
was mainly a result of vague definitions of the term and misinterpretation of the
archaeological data.
The existence of specialized production or craft specialization has already been
suggested for Anatolian and mainland Greek Neolithic communities by several
researchers. Özdoğan (1999: 230; 2007: 452), Hodder (2006: 248) and Balkan-Atlı and
Binder (2007: 220) discuss evidence of specialized production in Anatolian Neolithic
societies with different points of view. According to Özdoğan, the production of certain
technologies in PPN, such as terrazzo floors or well-made stone bowls, require certain
levels of “know-how” that can be possessed only by certain individuals in a community.
Moreover, according to one of Özdoğan’s examples, standardization observed on stone
bowls might indicate the existence of mobile-craftsmen who offered their craft in
exchange of food. Hodder (2006), on the other hand, avoids using the term “craft
specialization;” instead he prefers to call the increased labor investment and know-how,
observed in lithic and ceramic industries in the upper levels of Çatalhöyük, “specialized
production.” Finally, for Balkan-Atlı and Binder (2007) the standardization observed in
producing naviform core technology and the organization of exchange are good evidence
for specialized individuals. Although none of these researchers explicitly defines what
they mean by “craft specialists” or “specialized production,” it is obvious that there are
several factors which they take as good indicators of such a phenomenon. These are
know-how, labor intensity, standardization, and the existence of regional exchange
mechanisms.
In order to argue for or against craft specialization in the Neolithic, one needs to define
the concept and its parameters. Additionally, one should be able to put archaeological
evidence in a perspective that would allow testing the case.
There are several definitions offered for craft specialization that vary from one another
considerably. Specialization can be defined as “skills practiced by certain individuals
whose products are transferred to non-dependents” (Clark and Perry 1990). A more
detailed definition is made by Costin (1991: 4):
“..specialization is a differentiated, regularized, permanent, and perhaps institutionalized production system in which producers depend on extra-household exchange relationships at least in part for their livelihood, and consumers depend on them for acquisition of goods they do not produce themselves.”
223
As Perlès and Vitelli point out (1999: 96), according to the first definition specialists
exist even in the Paleolithic period. Production that fulfills the parameters required for
the second definition is however difficult to prove even for the Neolithic period. As a
result, “identification” of craft specialization in any prehistoric society will inevitably
rely on the definition preferred by the researchers. For instance, Miller identified labor
intensive but low-skill requiring and low-scale production of cockle shell beads at Early
Neolithic Franchthi as a specialized activity; but acknowledged the fact that more
restricted definitions provided for specialization would not allow this specific case to be
classified as “craft specialization” (Miller 1996: 31-32). Perlès (1992: 150-151) argues
for a specialized lithic industry in Greece from the Early Neolithic onwards, which is to
a large extent supported by the archaeological data. She even considers the existence of
specialized “middlemen” who would acquire obsidian from Melos, pre-form the cores
and exchange it with communities on the mainland who would possess neither the skills
of seafaring nor core preparation. Vitelli (1993) argues that during the Early Neolithic,
pottery production may have been specialized to a certain degree with a great deal of
innovation going on. Such studies and available archaeological data make it clear that
craft specialization in various forms and degrees existed already in the Neolithic period
(if not earlier). The question for our case is whether such mechanisms emerged in the
case of ceramic production as well.
In her detailed survey on craft specialization, Costin explains different degrees and types
of specialization which encompass variables from simple to complex societies. The
degree of specialization is defined as “the ratio of producers to consumers,” where high
numbers of specialists in relation to consumers would result in low degrees of
specialization. As the number of specialists remains low and the number of consumers
increase, the degree of specialization will get accordingly higher.
The types of specialization are defined through social and economic conditions. Four
parameters for determining the type of specialization are defined as the context,
concentration, scale, and intensity of production. The first one refers to any control on
the production, which can be either “attached” or “independent” depending on whether
any social class or group constitutes the demand. Concentration of production refers to
spatial organization of the production, whether specialists are organized into aggravated
workshops or work in dispersed locations. Scale of production is indicated by the total
number of individuals involved in the production process; while intensity is measured by
224
the total amount of time invested for the production which can therefore be classified as
“part-time” or “full-time” specialization. Although full-time specialization is rightly
associated with complex societies, such as states, part-time specialization occurs both in
complex and simple societies with low populations.
Costin (1991) points out that archaeologists have several kinds of indicators for
identifying specialization, its degree, and type. The identification of workshops, activity
areas, the intensity of products or wasters, tools used in the manufacturing process, and
the location of the production loci, as well as questioning the level of standardization,
skills, regional variation, and labor intensity, are appropriate methods of extracting
answers from the archaeological data.
By using these parameters one can determine whether Ulucak pottery production was
specialized or not; and if yes, then to what degree and of what type. If one uses the
restricted definition parameters, we should ask whether Neolithic Ulucak ceramic
production was differentiated, regularized, permanent, or institutionalized, and do the
producers depend on their products at least partially for their survival? Techniques used
to produce fine pottery at Ulucak might have not been shared by the whole community
which would have made it differential. Production, since it should be seasonal, is
regularized but not in the sense that there were certain working hours. As pottery is
among the common utilitarian objects, its production has to be permanent, and
archaeological evidence clearly supports this statement. Evidence of institutionalization
cannot be inferred through the available archaeological data. Whether pottery
manufacturers depended wholly or partially for their living on their skills is also difficult
to assess. Given that certain individuals or households carried out pottery production
without getting involved in agricultural production, the rest of the population must have
then provided them with food in exchange of ceramic vessels. The archaeological record
does not help in this respect, however ethnographic records show that small-sized agro-
pastoral societies might have developed part-time specialists (in this case farmer-
potters).
225
Figure 5.7: An activity area identified at Ulucak in Grid N11, Phase IVc. A clay platform, one grinding stone, stone tools and implements, one pestle, and several large lumps of clay are visible in the picture. These loaves of clay, probably prepared for manufacturing of pottery, were fired and preserved during the fire that destroyed the settlement.
If we try to determine the degree of ceramic production specialization at Ulucak, taking
the points made above into consideration, one can infer some of the parameters that are
needed to identify specialization. First, archaeological data presents us with several
indicators, such as the location of working areas within domestic quarters accompanied
by lumps of clay, stone tools, platforms, and flat stones used as batts. The location of
working areas within the domestic quarters indicates household-based production (Fig.
5.7). The absence of monumental architecture, segregated living quarters for a wealthy
class, pottery kilns, and of aggravated workshops would likewise imply specialization
that is household-based and independent.
Climatically-required seasonality of ceramic production restricts production to the
summer-fall seasons. If scheduling conflicts appeared between agricultural and pottery
production, a division of labor between gender groups might have emerged. Such a
division could have required women to stay at the house to produce pottery along with
exercising other domestic activities. The production of pottery by a certain gender is
already a step towards specialization, especially if the skills are transmitted from say,
226
mothers to daughters. Independent of whether such a division of labor occurred or not,
the skills possessed by the potter should be transmitted to the next generation, creating
the accumulation of know-how and knowledge. In terms of specialization, another
interesting issue is whether every individual in one household needed to learn the craft or
if only certain age-sex individuals were targeted. However, labor intensive, time
consuming manufacturing techniques and surface treatments, coupled with standardized
fabric and morphology at Ulucak, indicate specialization existed at least on a household
basis. But these points do not approve the following statements: 1. Pottery was
regionally exchanged; 2. Pottery producers depended partially on their products to
ensure a living; 3. Consumers depended on these products.
Ulucak pottery production does not seem to be a result of genuine craft specialization.
Archaeological indications support household-based production, developed “know-how”
of pottery technology, labor intensive production stages, and standardization. The
context of production is clearly within the house, where activity areas are confirmed. The
scale of production, meaning the number of individuals involved, is probably low. I tend
to imagine that different stages of production, such as clay mining and transportation,
might have involved small groups; meanwhile the forming of vessels was performed by
single individuals who were assisted by a family member, ideally the person who is
learning the craft and developing the skills and motor habits required. Certain
competence and knowledge is definitely required for every stage of pottery production
and is something which Ulucak potters seem to be capable of. A number of production
stages, especially thinning of vessel walls and surface treatments, demand high labor
investment. Similarly, the building of large vessels, of which some were found at Ulucak
IV, also requires a considerable amount of time and energy. The relatively small size of
vessels from Ulucak V may indicate that potters were not able to build large vessels or
such vessels were not in demand. Moreover, forms encountered at Ulucak V are simple;
composite or carinated vessels were not found, which indicates that vessel formation was
not a labor intensive stage and technical investment was low. Simple and low varieties of
shapes can be achieved by many, resulting in low levels of specialization. Form variety
and size increase in Level IV, implying advancements in pottery technology, an
increasing investment of labor and an increase in specialization. In comparison to the
hole-mouth jars of Level V, the manufacture of anthropomorphic vessels, for instance,
requires developed “know-how” and knowledge, as well as labor investment. Such
227
developments indicate a gradual increase in pottery technology from Level V to IV,
which might have necessitated specialized individuals.
Categories Ratio Context Concentration Scale Intensity Labor Input Know-How Production
Evidence Low Independent Dispersed Low Part-time Medium-high
Medium-high Low
Description
Ratio of specialists to consumers
low
No demand from
other social classes
House as workshop;
no aggravation of workshops
One individual to small groups
involved
Seasonal production; 2-3 weeks
High for large
vessels and surface
treatment
From raw material
procurement to firing
100-150 vessels
annually by whole
settlement
Table 5.1: Properties of pottery production at Ulucak IV-V.
At Ulucak, intensity of production was low and not year-round. Production may have
been limited to several weeks in summer, depending on the rate of production and loss
rates during firing. Likewise, the rate of production is low with each house producing its
own ceramic container needs (Tab. 5.1). Exchange at a regional scale is not shown,
although is certainly not out of question, but circulation within the settlement is highly
likely. Ethnographic records show cases, for example, where pregnant women or young
mothers are not able to produce pottery for their own needs, which is then acquired from
other women (i.e. widows or old women) who have plenty of time to produce more
pottery than their household need (Arnold 1989: 107). Cases such as this, or mechanisms
like gift exchange may have triggered circulation of pottery within and outside of the
settlement. Perhaps it is more appropriate to call this stage “initial specialization.” It
encompasses only a few of the parameters while the most indicative ones are still lacking
– most importantly, the economic parameter. Initial specialization of pottery production
can be described as household-based, independent, small-scale, and of low intensity.
Moreover, there is no indication of regularized exchange within or outside of the
settlement. It is thus not possible to argue that households which produced pottery relied
partially on their products for their livelihood.
H. Function of Ceramic Vessels
Conventionally it is assumed that ceramic vessels are utilitarian objects which serve
purposes of storage, food processing, cooking, and transfer. It is usually assumed that
jars are associated with storage and cooking, whereas bowls and dishes are associated
mostly with serving. However, ethnographic and archaeological research fail to
demonstrate such simplistic correlations between vessel form and function (Arnold
1989). Archaeologists should consider many variables in an attempt to discover the
specific functions of vessels they examine. Size, technological properties, fabric, surface
228
treatment, functional attachments, and morphology are the most obvious hints for
interpreting function. Another important indicator when analyzing ceramics are their
recovery contexts which may or may not support the original interpretation of their
function. Although there is a close relationship between subsistence strategies, food
preparation techniques, storage habits, and the ceramic containers produced by the
community, ceramics are not exclusively used for utilitarian purposes. Ritual use of
ceramics was proven both archaeologically and ethnographically. The important role of
ceramics in social events in prehistory has also been recognized by archaeologists (e.g.
Sherratt 1987). Moreover, certain fine wares or vessels with certain forms might transmit
messages related to the societal status of the owner. Therefore, it should be recognized
that ceramic vessels might entail functions that are beyond activities related to cooking,
serving or storage.
There are several indicators which help ceramic analysts understand vessel functions
beyond immediate observations on their morphology. Morphology can be examined in
terms of vessel capacity, stability, accessibility, and transportability (Rice 1987: 224-
226). In terms of fabric, wall thickness, resistance to mechanical stress, thermal
behavior, porosity, and surface treatment, these are significant indicators when
determining function. Below, these parameters will be briefly discussed by using
examples from the Ulucak assemblage.
The capacity of a vessel does not clearly tell us its function but combined with other
evidence can provide us with answers. Unfortunately, few vessels could be measured in
terms of volume at Ulucak. One short-necked jar from Level Va can contain 6.9 l liquid,
whereas a jar without a neck from IVb has a volume of 9.8 l. Another jar without a neck
from Va can contain only 0.32 l. One bowl with a ’s’-shaped profile and an height of 6.8
cm from Level Va can hold 0.34 l of liquid. Two jars from Level IVb, with heights of 65
and 81 cm, are clearly capable of containing more than 50 l.
Rice states (1987: 225) that the “stability of vessel refers to its resistance to tipping or
being upset, determined by shape, proportion, center of gravity and, breadth of the
base.” One striking property of Ulucak bowls and jars is their stability. This stability is
largely achieved by their globular bellies and flat bases that are proportional to the vessel
body. In particular, bowls with convex profiles, bowls with ‘s’–shaped profiles, deep
bowls of the oval variety, as well as hole-mouth jars with globular bodies can be
designated as stable. Globular bellies do not only increase the capacity of containers but
229
also enhance stability, eliminating many unwished for accidents that result in the loss of
stored material.
Accessibility is determined through the type of orifice that is found on the vessel and is
commonly used by archaeologists to determine vessel function. Vessels with restricted
orifices would imply that the contents were not supposed to be easily accessed.
Restricted orifices may serve to protect the contents from outside effects while
unrestricted orifices enable people to access the contents to be processed, served and/or
mixed with other materials. Therefore, restricted orifices are usually associated with
storage and transport vessels, while serving, processing and cooking would require
unrestricted orifices. At Ulucak, restricted vessels make up almost half of the
assemblage. Necked jars also exist, especially in Level IV. This means the ratio of
storing-transporting vessels to serving-processing vessels is roughly 1:1 at Ulucak IV-V.
Transportability is also affected by size, form and weight of the vessel. For example,
handles would enhance transportability and the existence of handles might indicate that
these vessels were used to transfer liquid or dry contents. The quasi-absence of handles
on Ulucak pottery is indeed interesting in this respect. This does not mean that vessels
were not used to transport at Ulucak. Small-sized jars, mostly accompanied with pierced
lugs, were definitely used to carry materials, whether liquid or dry. However, the small
size of jars and the absence of handles on vessels prevents us from identifying water jars
at Ulucak. Moreover, water jars normally have rough surfaces to prevent slipping which,
with the exception of impressed pottery from Ulucak, cannot be found in the
assemblage. In my opinion, the transport of liquids that required containers with high
volumes was undertaken by containers that were made out of other materials. Baskets or
leather containers might have been preferred for such purposes.
Although these parameters help us understand some of the relationships between form
and function, they fail to provide satisfactory answers. For pottery from Ulucak, one
especially needs to first examine whether cooking vessels existed at all. The notion,
raised by several archaeologists (Vitelli 1989; Perlès 1992: 143; Wijnen 1993: 324;
Hodder 2006: 53-54), that Neolithic ceramic vessels were not initially produced for
cooking purposes makes us examine Ulucak Neolithic pottery with this possibility in
mind. For instance, the earliest cooking pots identified at Çatalhöyük East originate from
Level VII, although ceramic production was known to the community centuries before
(Atalay and Hastorf 2005: 118).
230
It is suggested that cooking vessels should be coarse-grained, porous, coarse-textured,
perhaps roughened, and resistant to thermal shock (Rice 1987: 226-232). On the contrary
to this general description, Ulucak pottery is essentially dominated by fine wares, thin
walls, small-sized inclusions, non-porous, and smooth surfaces, which make them
inappropriate for cooking. The number of coarse wares that may were used for cooking
is low. So how did Ulucak people cook their food? There are several ways of cooking
food which did not necessarily involve ceramic containers. Roasting, grilling, baking,
and stone boiling are efficient and common ways of cooking food as attested to in
prehistory. The presence of open hearths, ovens and clay balls at Ulucak houses indicate
that all of these cooking methods were employed by the community. Unfortunately,
convincing evidence for cooking inside ceramic vessels on direct fire cannot be
demonstrated. Perhaps other cooking methods were considered more effective, or habits
and taboos of the community did not allow ceramic vessels to be placed directly on fire.
Another function that Ulucak pottery did not fulfill was bulk grain storage. If one
considers the average amount of annual
nutritional requirements per person to be
around 100-300 kg of cereals (see Bogaard
2004: Table 2.1), it becomes even more
obvious that the capacity of Ulucak
ceramics is far below these figures.
Storage of agricultural products in Level V
took place in clay bins in the houses.
Building 30 of Level Vb contained 11 clay
bins of varying volumes but none of the
vessels from this building had the capacity
to serve such storage purposes. Except the
two very large collared jars and the
occasional medium-large-sized jars from
Level IVb, storage was here again provided through bins; although, at this stage there
was a considerably lower number of bins detected inside the houses (Fig. 5.8). To use
ceramic containers as food storage devices emerges only at the end of the Neolithic
period. This change signifies a remarkable transformation in the storage practices of the
community. Daub bins are gradually replaced by large ceramic vessels. Evidence of food
Figure 5.8: Jar used as a storage vessel from Level IVb (H: 82 cm). The repair holes on the belly of the jar indicate that the potter had a hard time building and stabilizing the vessel.
231
storage in jars has also been verified by clay
jar lids, some of which have experienced
secondary firing and survived. It is known that
such lids are used to cover the mouths of the
vessels in order to prevent the stored material
from coming in contact with air (Özdoğan, E.
2007). At Ulucak, the clay jar lids have mat
impressions on them, indicating that the
mouth of the jars were first covered with a mat
and then sealed with clay (Fig. 5.9). This
method must have been effective and was
especially implemented to protect major food
resources like cereals and pulses from moisture, air, insects, and rodents.
Apparently, small jars were used to store material, organic or otherwise. The pierced
lugs were attached to the jars or bowls in order to remove them from the ground level.
This was probably done to protect the vessel contents from animals such as rats or
insects and to create more space in the house. Various plants, ground cereals, eggs, salt,
honey, meat, shells but also paints, pigments, stone tools, various raw material, and even
clay might have been stored in these vessels for short durations. As a result, storage was
achieved through the use of ceramic vessels, but only restricted amounts could be stored
in them and probably only for short durations of time. However, the storing of annual
agricultural yields took place somewhere else.
This analysis leaves us with serving as the main function of ceramic vessels. The size
and shape of most Ulucak vessels are indeed very appropriate for serving purposes,
especially unrestricted shapes like bowls with convex profiles and bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles which are perfect candidates for serving and eating food. An absence of dishes
and plates in Level V is indicative of alternative ways of consuming dry food. It seems
more probable that grilled meat or dry food in general were not put in containers but
probably placed in organic materials such as baskets, mats or tree leaves. Only various
liquids and porridges or stew-like meals were served in ceramic bowls. A high number
of bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and convex profiles, and capacities around 0.3-0.5 l,
indicate eating/drinking out of these vessels was common at Ulucak IV-V. Deep and
Figure 5.9: Clay lid with mat impressions used to seal containers, found in Building 13 (IVb).
232
large bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles were perhaps used to store fruits, nuts, grains, and
so forth, as opposed to being employed for serving purposes.
To summarize, one can state that at Ulucak pottery served two main purposes: as storage
for small amounts of material and to serve food. Storage of agricultural yield in big jars
began only with Level IV. Small-medium sized hole-mouth jars with pierced lugs were
used for storing a variety of materials, organic and non-organic. Bowls were utilized for
serving food that included liquids. Otherwise ceramic containers were not preferred for
serving dry food.
It seems like most conventional functions attributed to ceramic vessels were either
absent or secondary for Ulucak society. As already stated, thin walls, red color and
bright surfaces are constantly the intended results by the potters through Levels IV and
V. These craftsmen spent considerable time and energy in acquiring these specific
effects on their ceramic vessels. The visual appearance of pottery was obviously a
priority for the community. But why? The answer seems to be partly related to the
symbolic function of serving ceramics which, besides their apparent function, also
transmitted messages about their owner. The red color and brightness of the surface
might be a manifestation of prestige. In the case of the Ulucak community, red as a color
seems to have had significant symbolic implications as it is continuously and
increasingly preferred by the community from Level V to IV. Red painted lime floors
from the early phase VIa demonstrate that this color had a symbolic meaning for the
society since the beginning of the habitation on the mound.
It needs to be highlighted that technological determinism does not suffice to explain the
insistence on red surface color for pottery at Ulucak. This point is made clear by the fact
that technologically, the Ulucak community was able to produce pottery with a variety of
surface colors and very probably had a well-established knowledge of the properties of
various clay sources in the vicinity of the site. In my opinion, red as a color is
symbolically embedded in the daily life of the Ulucak community, who consciously re-
produced red-colored items. In the Neolithic period, red-colored floors and walls are
well-attested at sites like Aşıklı, Çatalhöyük and Hacılar. This evidence indicates that the
symbolism of red can be easily traced back to early stages of sedentism (Özbaşaran
2003). Red-colored wall paintings have also been recorded at Ulucak IVb. As a result, it
seems reasonable to suggest that color symbolism played an important role for the
Neolithic society at Ulucak who perpetually used red on their pottery.
233
The second property that increases the visual effect of Ulucak ceramics is their bright
surfaces, which were likewise intended by the potters and demanded by the community.
In this respect, all vessels at Ulucak, whether for serving or storage, symbolized
something to the viewer. It is precisely these qualities of Neolithic ceramics that led
Perlès to suggest that their actual function was to be remarked at social events (Perlès
1992: 144). In this sense, pottery acquires a role beyond its basic utilitarian function as
food containers. Pots become important components of social events such as marriage
ceremonies, gift exchanges, feasts, mortuary practices, and rituals of other types, a
phenomenon ethnographically recorded all over the world (see Arnold 1989: 159). The
fact that most Ulucak pottery was used for serving supports the idea that these ceramics
were produced to be used in social events of various types. Whether special substances
were served inside these bowls, such as milk or fermented beverages, remain unknown
for the time being.
At this stage, the archaeological evidence from Ulucak is surprisingly pointing towards a
non-utilitarian use of ceramic vessels which reminds us of the theory developed by
Hayden who coined the concept of “competitive feasting” in the transition to farming.
According to Hayden (1995; 2003), at first ceramic vessels and their contents were used
by aggrandizers in trans-egalitarian societies to impress the guests at feasts whose main
function was to display wealth, create social coalitions and acquire political power. For
him, even the first domesticates like wheat, barley, rice or cattle, were luxury foods
whose possession provided certain socio-political power to the individuals who
organized feasts to display their societal status and enhance political coalitions (Hayden
2003: 460). Data from various parts of the world where early pottery was essentially fine
and/or elaborate, virtually unsuitable for cooking, were already explored through the
insights provided by the “competitive feasting” hypothesis (see for example Pratt 1999
for Colombia; Halstead 2004 for Greece). Likewise, feasting deposits were identified at
the PPN site of Musular (Özbaşaran et al. 2007: 281) as well as at Çatalhöyük, where the
earliest ceramic containers were not manufactured for culinary purposes (Hodder 2006:
172, 199).
The ceramic record from Ulucak also seems to match well with the feasting theory.
Ongoing analyses on osteological and botanical remains may shed more light on the
possible existence of feasting activities at Ulucak IV-V. Therefore, we will restrict
ourselves here to underline the fact that functional analysis of Ulucak pottery fits well
234
with the data known from Early Neolithic Greece and Turkey, where early ceramics
were not necessarily produced to enhance cooking techniques. On the contrary, storage
and serving were the primary functions of the early pottery which, considered together
with feasting deposits at Neolithic sites, makes us contemplate the competitive feasting
hypothesis as a plausible explanation of the archaeological record. Red color and glossy
burnish stand out as the most remarkable properties of the LN-EC pottery at the site and
suggest that ceramics might have played a role in the social and ritual activities.
Large-scale cereal or food storage at Ulucak begins only with the beginning of the 6th
millennium BCE. Storage of agricultural products took place in daub bins prior to this
change at the site.
235
Chapter VI
Intra-regional and Inter-regional Comparisons of Ulucak Ceramics
A. Central-West Anatolia
Central-West Anatolia can be defined as the area covered by modern provinces İzmir
and Manisa. The most predominant geographical features are the lower Gediz River with
a number of tributaries.
The pre-Neolithic sub-stratum in the region is virtually unknown due to lack of research.
Two hand-axes of lower Paleolithic type were found in Urla and Narlıdere in district
İzmir which remains as single find spots (Kansu 1963; 1969). Another Paleolithic open-
site named Kızıltaş near Çine in province Aydın was identified, but the lithic material
remains unpublished so far (Akdeniz 1997: 240). Pre-Neolithic assemblages in the area
have been positively identified at one site during the Central Lydian Archaeological
Survey (CLAS) directed by Chris Roosevelt and Christina Luke of Boston University
since 2005 (Roosevelt and Luke 2007). An open-air site, 5 km to the south of Lake
Marmara in Salihli-Manisa, stretching to 12 hectares has been intensively surveyed
which revealed lithic material dating from Lower-Middle Paleolithic to the Epi-
Paleolithic/Mesolithic periods indicated by choppers, Tayac points, Levallois cores and
flakes, microlithic cores and tools (Cooney et al. in preparation). The site is the first
open-air site ever discovered in Central-West Anatolia which has been used as camping-
knapping site at least since the Middle Paleolithic. Presence of Mesolithic toolkit at the
site is significant as it implies the existence of possible post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherers
in the region. The precise dating of the site remains elusive. Further research is needed in
the area to understand the nature of pre-Neolithic communities. Current knowledge is
supporting the diffusionist view of neolithization in Central-West Anatolia which might
236
have been triggered by dispersal mechanisms like demic diffusion, leapfrog colonization
and frontier mobility following maritime and land routes.49 For the time being, one can
assume that the region was not void of occupation prior to the arrival of early farming
communities.
The Neolithic stratum is defined by several sites which have been excavated since
middle 1990’s. Below we will present the material from these sites in detail and compare
the ceramic data with Ulucak in order to define the regional ceramic traits and construct
a relative chronological order.
1. Yeşilova
Yeşilova is a partly submerged prehistoric mound with an altitude of 14 m. above sea
level, discovered during urban construction activities, and is situated on Bornova alluvial
plain east of İzmir. To the north of the site Manda Stream is located which provided the
water source for the site’s inhabitants as well as is responsible from the many flood
deposits that are identified on the mound. The site is salvage-excavated since 2005 under
the direction of Zafer Derin by a team from Ege University, İzmir (Derin 2007: 377).
The current chrono-stratigraphical sequence developed for the mound is as follows:
Level I: Late Roman- Early Byzantine period
Level II (with 2 sub-phases): Chalcolithic Period
Level III (with 8 sub-phases): Neolithic Period
One carbon estimate from Level III.7 provided 7507±37 BP (Derin 2007: 383).
Calibration with OxCal 3.10 reveals a time range 6440-6360 cal. BCE (at 1 σ). It is
indicated that the oldest deposits at Yeşilova reach back to mid 7th millennium BCE.
Neolithic remains are reported to constitute the thickest cultural levels at the mound,
reaching to 3 m of accumulation. Flood deposits are observed at many locations during
excavations. The occupation on mound has probably ceased due to the flooding of
Manda Stream as evidenced by the flood deposits covering the latest Neolithic
settlement. The architectural remains from the site are comprised of features identified as
“mud-floors” and “burnt-surfaces” which contained archaeological finds like pottery,
lithics and so on. Absence of true architectural features such as mudbrick walls or stone
foundations have been interpreted as evidence of building techniques and material that
49 For definitions of these mechanisms see Zvelebil 2001: 2.
237
are perishable. It is suggested that houses were made out of wood, reeds and other
organic materials whose evidence did not survive (Derin 2007).
Among other Neolithic finds from Yeşilova, clay stamps, stone bowls, anthropomorphic
figurines and various lithic and bone tools can be mentioned. Lithic industry is
dominated by blades produced made on prismatic blade cores, which are knapped from
various flints and to a lesser extent obsidian.
Ceramics
Derin (2007: 380) distinguishes three main developmental phases in the ceramic
assemblage from the eight Neolithic sub-phases he identified. First (or the youngest)
phase, III1-2, is characterized by light brown and red slipped monochrome pottery which
includes small grits and mica particles in the fabric. It is mentioned that some thick
walled examples also include organic inclusions. There is an increase in the red surface
colored pottery in this late phase. Among the common ceramic shapes from this phase
are jar with long necks and everted rims, hole-mouth jars with flattened rims, shallow
bowls with straight and ‘s’-shaped profiles (Fig. 6.1). Tubular lugs, with variants, are
common in the assemblage. Morphologically they are classified as “long-thin”, “short-
thick” and “large” tubular lugs. Bases are mostly flat, slightly raised, hollowed. Ring
bases are very seldom. This phase also includes pottery with impressed decoration.
In the middle phase which encompasses sub-
phases 3-5, red slipped pottery is increasingly
accompanied by brown toned ceramics which
are likewise slipped. Red slipped as well as
light brown-cream colored examples are thin
walled but bright surfaces are rather rare
(Derin 2007: Fig. 9). In this middle phase, the
most common form is likewise hole-mouth jar
with globular bodies. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles increase. Shallow bowls with flaring
profiles, jars with everted necks and everted or flattened rims, very shallow bowls with
semi-globular shapes and everted rims constitute the rest of the ceramic repertoire.
Tubular lugs continue while painted and plastic decorations are observed on a number of
ceramics. Plastic decorations show for instance bucrania and frog motifs. The paint,
comprised of single bands or wavy lines, is described as reddish brown colored on
Figure 6.1 Jars with flattened rims and one jar with short vertical neck from Yeşilova III1-2 (modified after Derin 2008: Res.4)
238
reddish yellow surface (Derin 2007: 380; Derin: online). The bases are mainly carinated
flat type, some bearing sooting traces on the bottom (Derin 2007: Fig. 9).
The earliest horizon at Yeşilova, sub-phases 6-8, comprises by and large similar pottery
fabrics and shapes to the upper phases. In addition to fine mineral tempered pottery (wall
thickness range between 4-7 mm) with red and brown toned surfaces, cream colored
examples increase in this stage. It is noted that on most examples slip seems to have
disintegrated due to high humidity (Derin 2007: 380). Forms are dominated by hole-
mouth jars with everted or flattened rims and globular bodies, jars with everted necks,
bowls with straight bodies, deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and semi-globular bowls.
It is noted that flaring shallow bowls are encountered only in this early horizon. Tubular
lugs do persist, and are usually of long-thin variation. Vertically placed circular handles
are mentioned too. Bases are either flat or carinated flat type.
2. Ege Gübre
Ege Gübre is a multi-layered flat settlement on Nemrut Bay located in province Aliağa,
north of İzmir. The site is buried 3-4 m under the current surface and is only 1 km
distanced from the sea. To the East of the site Hayıtlı Stream flows. Geomorphological
studies point out that site was situated on the coast, adjacent to a swampy area. Small
scale soundings have been previously realized by Turan Özkan and Sebastiana Lagona
who confirmed existence of Neolithic remains at the settlement. Excavations have been
conducted as a salvage project by İzmir Archaeological Museum and Ege University
under the direction of Haluk Sağlamtimur between 2004-2008 (Sağlamtimur 2007: 373).
Five carbon dates are available from the site which shows two overlaps. One cluster is
dated to 6000-5800 cal. BCE and another clustering occurs between 6230-6000 cal. BCE
(Sağlamtimur 2007: 376). These measurements indicate that Ege Gübre was settled at
the end of 7th – beginning of 6th millennium cal. BCE.
The architectural remains unearthed by the excavations are composed of stone
foundations belonging to rectangular and circular structures as well as an enclosure wall
with a tower which was according to Sağlamtimur probably built for protection against
floods. In the later stages a ditch was added to the outer side of the wall (Sağlamtimur
2007: 374). Sağlamtimur distinguishes two separate occupations dating to 7-6th millennia
239
BCE which are called Level 3a-b and Level 4. Level 4, being the earlier, is exposed in a
very limited area and contain architectural remains that belong to circular structures.50
Co-existence of circular and rectilinear structures at Ege Gübre is unique in the region.
Comparable circular and rectangular structures are known from Transitional-Early Halaf
sites like Sabi Abyad in Northern Syria (Verhoeven and Kranendonk 1996: Fig. 2.7),
otherwise, circular plans are abandoned following PPNA period in Southwest Asia,
persisting only on Cyprus for a long time (Peltenburg 2004).
No evidence of mudbrick as
building material has been
identified at the site. It is
suggested that the upper
structures were built with
wood and mud implementing
wattle-and-daub technique.
Flat stones have been spotted
in the walls which were used
to support the wooden posts
and finally the roofs of the
structures. The structures,
both rectangular and circular,
have their door openings
towards a central open-air area which is surrounded by these buildings. Rectangular
buildings (with sizes 9 x 7 and 9 x 6 m) contain two rooms, one of them being always
much smaller in size than the other. Circular structures have walls that are 70-80 cm
thick and are 4 m in diameter. It is interesting to note that all the circular buildings are
placed adjacent to a rectangular building, indicating that they were part of a building
complex or at least in association with each other (Fig. 6.2). Rectangular buildings
contain hearths and ovens while in circular structures such features do not occur. It is
mentioned that central courtyard included a number of fire installations, midden areas
and production workshops (Sağlamtimur 2007).
Lithic industry, exclusively out of chert, includes single-platform prismatic blade cores
and blade based lithic production. Some of the typical Neolithic finds have been found at 50 This information is kindly provided by Haluk Sağlamtimur (02.03.2009).
Figure 6.2: Ege Gübre prehistoric settlement (after Sağlamtimur 2007: Fig. 20)
240
Ege Gübre. Grinding instruments, stamps, figurines, polished axes, various bone tools
and lithic tools constitute some of the material cultural assemblage.
Ceramics
Pottery from the site is described as brown-gray cored, small grit, sand, mica and /or
shell tempered, red-brown slipped, smoothed and predominantly burnished. There are
also coarse, brown and cream slipped wares in the assemblage which however remain in
low quantity compared to RSBW (personal observation). Ceramics decorated with
impressions is very common at the site. These appear with or without red slip applied to
the outer surface. Impressions are mostly intensive, deep and nail impressions forming
half circles. Shallow and irregular impressions appear as well (Sağlamtimur 2007: Figs.
8-9). Among other decoration types encountered at the site plastic, barbotine51 and
painted decoration are worth mentioning. One plastic decorated vessel showing a
steatopygous woman raising her arms is very articulate52 while more abstract designs are
observed as well (Sağlamtimur 2007: Fig. 6b). Excavators indicate that pottery with
plastic decoration stem mostly from lower levels (personal communication). One white-
on-red painted sherd has been observed by the author.
Ceramic assemblage includes vertically placed tubular lugs and to a lesser extent single
and double knobs. Few of the tubular lugs are placed inside the bowls which seems to be
peculiar to this settlement in Central-West Anatolia.53 Bases are mainly disc shaped and
ringed. One high pedestal base is also present in the assemblage (personal observation).
It is not known whether the pedestal base is a common feature of Ege Gübre ceramics.
Rectangular raised bases in the shape of a stepped-cross are likewise peculiar to the Ege
Gübre assemblage54 (Sağlamtimur 2007: 375).
Ceramic typology is predominantly composed of deep bowls and jars with everted rims,
globular bodies and ‘s’-shaped profiles. Thick flattened rims occur as well (personal
observation).
51 Barbotine is understood as a decoration type made by applying small clay lumps on the surface of a vessel. 52 This piece remains unpublished and was kindly shown to me by Ali Ozan. 53 Tubular lugs inside the vessel has been illusrated in Hacılar publication from Level VI (Mellaart 1970: Pl. LIV). 54 Same feature is mentioned and illustrated at Hacılar VI (Mellaart 1970: p. 107; Pl. 57;12-13)
241
3. Çukuriçi Höyük
Çukuriçi is a mound located in the vicinity of ancient city of Ephesos and on Küçük
Menderes Plain, close to the river with the same name which flows into the Aegean Sea.
Geomorphological studies indicate that coastal line was reaching to the close proximity
of the site in ancient times. Currently the mound is surrounded by tangerine orchards and
is under threat by agricultural activities. The mound has been discovered and
investigated in 1995 by archaeologists from Efes Museum, who made sondages on the
mound and collected archaeological material, including many pottery and lithic tools of
Neolithic age (Evren and İçten 1997: 112-113). Systematic excavations are undertaken at
the site since 2007 by an Austrian team under the direction of Barbara Horejs.
The stratigraphical order on the mound according to the current research is reported to be
composed of at least five occupational levels which span, on the basis of ceramic
comparisons, from Late Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic (LN-EC) to Late Chalcolithic and
Early Bronze Age I-II. Neolithic remains from the site include two parallel mud walls
with stone foundations, probably a house, whose destruction debris contains various
archaeological material including large amounts of obsidian and chert tools and debitage
(Horejs 2008).
Ceramics
The pottery from the early levels, designated as “LN-EC”, is characterized by fine-
medium pottery with mineral non-plastic inclusions; some fabrics have intensive mica
presence in the paste and on surface. Majority of the wares are of red-orange slipped and
burnished type but CSBW as well as gray-brown colored unburnished impressed wares
are likewise present in the assemblage. Impressed decoration, mostly of nail-like shapes,
can also occur on red slipped surfaces.55 The most commonly occurring forms are hole-
mouth jars with short necks or without necks that have ‘s’-shaped profiles and globular
bodies (Horejs 2008: Figs. 13-14). Vertically placed tubular lugs (small-thin to big-thick
variations), small loop handles and single knobs are commonly observed too. Painted
pottery from the site is expectedly low in number. One bodysherd painted with white
dots over red surface is interesting as it implies presence of white-on-red pottery in this
region.
55 This information relies on my own personal observation. I would like to thank Barbara Horejs for allowing me to inspect the material from Çukuriçi.
242
4. Dedecik-Heybelitepe
Dedecik-Heybelitepe is a flat settlement situated to the west of Torbalı Plain, on the
slopes of Bozdağlar, in the vicinity of ancient city of Metropolis to the 40 km south of
İzmir. Small scale excavation took place at the site in years 2003-2004 under the
direction of Clemens Lichter and Recep Meriç, who laid out six sondages on the site and
were able to uncover LN-EC remains in one of the grids under the Late Chalcolithic
layers. The site also houses a Byzantine cemetery as well as Roman residential areas
(Lichter and Meriç 2007: 385-386).
Four levels have been identified at the site (Levels A-D). Level A designates the earliest
stratum founded directly on the bedrock which is unfortunately highly damaged by the
later levels such as burials. The Neolithic accumulation at the site is around 70 cm thick
and void of any meaningful architectural remains. In grid V, partly damaged remains of
two walls (4.5 m and 1.4 m in length) have been exposed. They are connected to each
other and probably belong to a structure, however, the plan of the building cannot be
inferred due to the damage caused by the younger deposits (Herling et al. 2008: 20).
The pottery assemblage of Level A
is dominated by fine, mineral
tempered and well fired plain
burnished pottery. Surface colors
are dominated by red, reddish
brown and brown hues as a result
of oxidizing firing conditions.
Burnishing and smoothing are
typical surface treatments
observed. Coarse wares are
completely missing in the
assemblage. Cream-white colored
slip has been attested on five
pieces. Wall thickness of this
pottery ranges between 0.5-1 cm
Herling et al. 2008: 20-21).
Figure 6.3: Pottery from Dedecik-Heybelitepe Level A (after Herling et al. 2008: Abb. 4)
243
In terms of vessel forms, jars with short necks and globular bodies, vessels with ‘s’-
shaped profiles and deep bowls are frequent. Vertical tubular lugs of varying size and
shape are very common while base typology is dominated by disc bases (Fig. 6.3).
Decoration is rarely found although 1% of the assemblage showed impressed decoration.
Impressions are made with finger tips or with a pointed instrument (Lichter and Meriç
2007: 386; Herling et al. 2008: 21).
Apart from pottery, one stamp seal with concentric circles was recovered during the
excavations (Herling et al. 2008: Abb. 8.3). Lithic industry is predominated by retouched
blades, end-scrapers and side-scrapers. Typical for the blade cores is the conical shape
and these are rightly categorized as “bullet cores” (Herling et al. 2008: 46; Abb. 20.1-4).
Additional remarkable information is the source of obsidian that is brought to the site.
Neutron activation analysis conducted on ten pieces of obsidian demonstrated that 9 out
of 10 pieces originate from Island Melos whereas only one fragment was procured from
sources around Çiftlik in Central Anatolia (Herling et al. 2008: Abb. 23 and Abb. 24).
The evidence suggests that maritime exchange route was more actively used by the
community than the overland exchange routes. It is also proven that the obsidian
originates from at least two sources on Melos, confirming an ongoing maritime
exchange during this period (Lichter and Meriç 2007: 386).
5. Agio Gala Lower and Upper Caves
Agio Gala is a cave located on a coastal cliff on the north-western corner of island Chios,
around 15 km distanced from the Karaburun Peninsula of İzmir. Pottery from the site has
already been collected by von Oertzen and subsequently published in 1888 by
Studniczka. Excavations at the site took place in 1938 by Edith Eccles of British School
of Archaeology at Athens who investigated an area of 25 m2 and made a seven m deep
sounding on the slope where archaeological material seemed to be rich. Stratified
deposits did not exist in the excavation area; indeed pottery found is thought to have
fallen from another cave above. Upper Cave is located above the lower cave to the left of
it. Excavations took here in the main chamber in 1938 by Edith Eccles. Upper Cave’s
earlier deposits contained pottery types excavated at the lower cave (Hood 1981: 11-13).
According to Hood, pottery assemblage from Lower Cave is by and large homogeneous.
The standard ware contains mineral inclusions, mica, having grey to red fractures,
mostly red, light brown and burnished surfaces. Surfaces are frequently mottled and
244
sooted. Main vessel forms are shallow bowls with flaring bodies, jars or deep bowls with
vertical or slight ‘s’-shaped profiles. Short necked jars appear as well (Hood 1981: Figs.
5-6). Bead rims are seen on Hood 1981: Figs. 7-26, 27, 28). Bases are flat or carinated
flat. Tubular lugs, single knobs and pierced knobs are commonly observed. Tailed
tubular lugs, a characteristic trait peculiar to this site, on jars are frequently seen as well.
Some cups, jars and rims demonstrated on Hood 1981: Figs. 6 and 7 seem to belong to
later stages of Aegean prehistory, such as those with incised decorations. White painted
and plastic decorated examples are however known from the assemblage and can easily
be considered as LN-EC.
Lower Cave’s archaeological assemblage also includes well-made stone bowls, one
figurine head, chipped stones (few obsidian), shell pendants and various bone tools
(Hood 1981: 64-65).
Upper Cave’s lower levels revealed thin-walled and small sized pottery. Clay is grayish
to reddish brown, tempered with mineral and organic inclusions. Mica is present here
too. Outer surfaces are burnished with red being the dominant surface color. Such fine
red burnished examples tend to have three-layered inoxidized cores and mottled
surfaces. Brown burnished wares are also existent in the assemblage (Hood 1981: 29).
Bowls with convex profiles, shallow bowls with flaring sides, deep bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles, jars with everted necks are represented in the assemblage from the lower
levels (Hood 1981: Figs. 17-18). Some horizontally pierced tubular lugs are certainly
intrusive as such lugs are typical characteristic of Emporio VIII. Bases are flat and
decoration is very rare. Relief decorated pieces occur.
A number of the vessels considered under title “without context” seem to date to Aegean
EN period such as the hole-mouth jars on Fig. 31:186,189, 190; short necked jar on Fig.
34: 211; jars with vertical necks on Fig. 35: 213, 214; jar with vertical neck on Fig. 37:
226; flattened rim on Fig. 38: 241; tubular lug on Fig. 40: 265 and finally oval base on
Fig. 41: 272.
Small finds from Agio Gala Upper Cave are comprised of polished axes, one loom
weight, marble bracelets, various pendants and even metal objects (Hood 1981: 66-68).
Marble bracelets especially are known to have a younger date than the Aegean EN as
they first appear in this area in the second half of 6th millennium BCE (Ünlüsoy 2002).
245
6. General Overview of the Sites Surveyed
There are a few number of important surveys carried out in Central-West Anatolia
which revealed evidence of a good number of LN-EC sites. French (1965, 1969), being
the pioneer, Meriç (1993), Lichter (2002, 2005), Erdoğu (2000) and Derin (2004; 2006)
either conducted surveys or documented sites belonging to this age. The contribution of
these investigations to West Anatolian prehistory is remarkable however interpretations
based on the data from surface surveys must be made with caution.
The dating of the material at these locations were expectedly made with ceramic
comparisons, especially with the material known from Lake District, NW Anatolia and
other Central-West Anatolian sites. One common characteristic of pottery identified as
“Neolithic” or “Early Chalcolithic” from these survey sites is their red, brown, orange
colored burnished surfaces, vertical tubular lugs, vessels with ‘s’-shaped profiles.
Flattened (aka “inner thickened”) rims and impressed pieces are occasionally attested
(see French 1965; Meriç 1993; Lichter 2002; Derin and Batmaz 2004; Derin 2006).
French called this ware in his publications as “plain burnished ware”. Flattened rims and
red-on-cream painted pieces were also recovered during these surveys for instance at
Moralı (Dinç 1997: 266; Takaoğlu 2004: Fig. 2) and Araptepe-Bekirlertepe (Lichter
2002: 162). French (1965: Fig. 4) collected flat, carinated flat and ring bases at Moralı.
Dinç (1997) additionally found a fragment of dark colored burnished and decorated
“Fikirtepe box” (aka “offering table” or “polypod prismatic vessels”) at the same site
(Takaoğlu 2004: Figure 3.25). Such vessels were likewise recovered at Çaltıdere and
Höyücek II to the north of İzmir by Meriç (1993) during his surveys. Clearly “Fikirtepe
type” incised polypod vessels were produced in areas to the north of İzmir.
Among other survey sites from Central-West Anatolia, Nemrut Höyük and Yenmiş
Höyük are of great interest for this study as they are situated in the Nif Valley in close
proximity to Ulucak. Neolithic pottery, basically RSBW, collected from these sites is
very similar in terms of fabric and morphology to the material known from Ulucak,
although it is noted that ceramics from Ulucak have a higher quality in comparison
(Derin and Batmaz 2004: 78). Hole-mouth jars, flattened rims, tubular lugs and carinated
flat bases are identified in the survey assemblage. Other types of wares, such as coarse,
impressed, painted or cream slipped, are not mentioned in the report.
246
7. Comparisons with Ulucak Ceramics and Relative Chronology of the Sites
A general description of ceramics from the above presented sites suffices to make us
realize the immense reminiscence of all the sites with the studied material from Ulucak.
Fabrics, dominated by fine-medium red burnished wares are basically the same, perhaps
only containing dissimilarities resulting from the chemical properties of local clay
sources that are exploited. It is however worth mentioning that all sites had pottery
tempered with minerals such as small grits, mica and sand. Organic inclusions,
specifically chaff, have been observed at Yeşilova III Late, Ulucak IV and Agio Gala. At
Ulucak, with phase Vb organic inclusions are not detected anymore which indicates a
deliberate change in the type of inclusion used by the potters. Similarly, at Yeşilova III
Early-Middle organic inclusions are absent (Derin 2007: 380). It seems plausible that
before 6000-5900 BCE pottery was solely tempered with mineral materials. Chaff as
clay temper is used only with the beginning of 6th millennium BCE in the region which
is indicated by the data from Ulucak and Yeşilova. This indicates that mineral tempered
red burnished pottery from Çukuriçi and Dedecik-Heybelitepe should date to a period
before the beginning of 6th millennium BCE.
It is clear that each and every site from Central-West Anatolia produced RSBW in big
amounts. Both survey and excavation sites confirm this statement. What is more
intriguing is to detect wares other than RSBW. During surveys these wares most
probably remained unrecognized; therefore it is more meaningful to concentrate on
excavated sites. At Yeşilova, both cream and brown colored wares are reported to exist
in Level Early-Middle III while in the latest stage RSBW dominates clearly (Derin
2007). Similarly, deposits from Ege Gübre revealed both brown and cream wares,
however no chronological order is provided for their appearance (Sağlamtimur 2007).
They seem to co-exist with RSBW and impressed wares throughout the entire sequence.
Çukuriçi pottery assemblage does include fine examples of CSBW (personal
observation). Hood (1981: 29) mentions brown colored pottery from the upper cave, but
the stratigraphical issues makes it difficult to construct a sequential order for that site. At
Dedecik-Heybelitepe only five cream slipped sherds have been recorded (Herling et al.
2008: 13). Sporadic appearance of painted sherds, be it red-on-cream, cream-on-red or
white-on-red, almost at every site in the region do not form a meaningful assemblage
enabling us to compare and contrast. Ulucak examples are, except the red-brown painted
247
anthropomorphic vessel from IVb, confined to single bands or “V” shapes on small sized
body- or rimsherds. One base fragment with a red painted cross inside and outside is
unique to the site and to the region.
Impressed pottery is attested at Ege Gübre, Çukuriçi Höyük, Yeşilova III Late, Ulucak
IV and Dedecik-Heybelitepe Level A, while it seems to be completely lacking at Agio
Gala. There seems to be no variations about the way in which impressions are applied to
the surface among these sites. Ege Gübre, Dedecik-Heybelitepe, Çukuriçi and Ulucak
examples are almost identical, both sites having red slipped and gray-brown unburnished
varieties. One of the most important characteristics of the impressed wares in our region
is that the impressions, independent of their shapes, are unconnected to each other (Fig.
6.4). This observation is crucial as it presents a contrast to some Levantine-Southeast
Anatolian as well as to Mediterranean impressed examples which do show continuous
impressions. In Central-West Anatolia the impressions are formed with the help of
fingertips, fingernails or sharp pointed instruments.
Müller (1988: 106) classifies the former type with unconnected impressions as
“Impresso A” while the latter is
called “Impresso B”. Impresso A and
B refer to different chronological
zones in the development of
impressed pottery, although short-
term overlapping is observed as
Impresso A goes out of fashion. The
development of the impressed wares
can be well observed in the Dalmatia
where Impresso B evolves into Tremolo style. Similarly, in Levantine-Cilician-Southeast
Anatolian area, both Impresso A and Impresso B types are documented (Balossi-Restelli
2006). In our region, only the first type (Impresso A) is observed whereas the later
developmental stages in the impressed pottery are not represented at all. Instead, RSBW
remain dominant in the EC assemblage while in Lake District and Konya Plain cream-
on-red painted pottery is produced in large amounts. Unfortunately, we do not know the
cultural developments in Central-West Anatolia after 5800 cal. BCE. All the mounds
which are subject to research have been evidently abandoned prior to mid 6th millennium
cal. BCE. In other words, we are not in a position to tell whether Impresso B trend has
Figure 6.4: Impressed sherds from Ege Gübre (after Sağlamtimur 2007: Fig. 9)
248
ever been received or adapted in our region. But it is worth making the point that none of
the excavations and surveys in West and North Anatolia produced Impresso B type of
impressed wares with continuous zig-zags or lines made with a comb. In this light, we
can tentatively suggest that impress B impact has never affected the Aegean. In other
words, it seems to have by-passed the Aegean but followed the East-West axis of the
Mediterranean.
Plastic decoration is ubiquitous in the region but usually confined to abstract or
geometric forms. The most elaborate example known so far from the region comes from
Ege Gübre depicting a woman in action.56 Elaborate ones from Ulucak actually come
from level V showing bucrania or wavy lines. Barbotine decoration is known from few
examples from Ege Gübre and Ulucak Vc. Pinching however is seen only at Ulucak Va
on an ‘s’ profiled bowl. Equivalent of what we call “mica glimmer ware” seems to have
been identified only at Ulucak Vb-f so far.
The sequence established for Ulucak, where earliest levels are devoid of impressed
wares but are rather dominated by brown burnished wares along with RSBW and
CSBW, seem to be echoed solely at Yeşilova III Early. This has several implications.
First, it is indicated that the developmental stages at Ulucak were not unique to the site
and may be regionally applicable. Secondly, this observation entails implications about
the positions of Central-West Anatolian sites in a regional chronological system.
As with the fabrics, vessel shapes seem to
repeat itself in every settlement. There
are, as one realizes, limited number of
vessel shapes or morphological elements
appearing in the region. Fantastic or
carinated forms, known for instance from
Lake District, are almost absent in the
assemblages. The only “fantastic” form
that is available is the anthropomorphic
vessel, two of which were uncovered
from Ulucak IVb and nowhere else in the
region. Vessel shapes in general seem to
56 This piece is not published yet. I wouild like to thank Haluk Sağlamtimur and Ali Ozan for allowing me to see it.
Figure 6.5: Jar with globular body and four lugs is one of the most typical vessel shape of Central-West Anatolian LN-EC sites. 1: Ulucak IVh 2. Ulucak Vb 3. Yeşilova III6-8 (after Derin 2008: Res. 6) 4. Agio Gala Lower Cave (after Hood 1981: Fig. 6).
249
cluster around two major forms: Hole-mouth globular shapes and ‘s’-shaped shaped
profiles. Former associated mainly with jars while the latter is observed on both jars and
bowls. For example, Ulucak V is almost exclusively composed of these two forms
without much innovation or variety. Ulucak IV experiences some innovations such as
jars with long vertical and everted necks, but the basic forms persist into the Level IV.
Hole-mouth globular jars, jars-deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with convex
profiles and bowls with flaring profiles are characteristic of all the settlements we
presented above.
One typical small sized hole-mouth jar with a lower globular body and tubular lugs has
been recovered at Çukuriçi Höyük whose best parallels are found at Ulucak Va
(Excavation Unit: DGI 14259), Ulucak Vb (Excavation Unit: EPC 18528) and Agio
Gala Upper Cave (see Hood 1981: Fig. 31,186- without context). Medium sized jars with
globular bodies, without necks or with short necks, are likewise very typical for the
entire region (Fig. 6.5). Jars with necks however are specifically mentioned for Yeşilova
III Early-Middle-Late. Some comparable jar fragments with long necks are also
illustrated for Agio Gala Upper Cave. It is unclear from the descriptions whether other
sites did also possessed jars with long necks. One form that also seems to be only
unearthed at Ulucak V is the spouted jar. Spouts in general are unknown in the region
and only two examples are observed at Ulucak V. Their altogether absence in level IV is
also remarkable. It implies that ceramic vessels specifically for purposes of pouring were
not produced.
Rim types also seem to be more or less identical in the entire
region. Everted, simple and flattened rims are encountered at
each site. At Ulucak, flattened rims are especially frequent
in the upper building phases IVa-e representing 18-30% of
the rim types in these layers. Flattened rims however do
exist in the earlier phases too. Everted rims are more
numerous in the Level V but do clearly continue into the
latest stages without a break. One rim type is however rarely
found, e.g. the bead-rim. Only at Ulucak and Agio Gala such
rims are reported. It is not known whether other reports overlooked the bead-rims or they
are really non-existent. At Ulucak they solely appear in IVb, e.g. in the very late stage of
the settlement.
Figure 6.6: The so-called “Agio Gala Lug” from the Lower Cave (modified after Hood 1981: Fig. 5)
250
The most well-known characteristic of West Anatolian Neolithic pottery is the vertical
tubular lug which serves as a distinct feature of Neolithic pottery especially during
surveys. Tubular lugs of various sizes and lengths are found at Ulucak IV-V, Yeşilova
III Early-Middle-Late, Ege Gübre, Agio Gala, Çukuriçi and Dedecik-Heybelitepe Level
A. There are slight variations which need to be mentioned here. First of all, at Ulucak
their amount increases in Level V, making up 70-80% of all lug assemblage. They are
slightly longer and thinner in level Va-b than in the upper levels and may be applied in
pairs on jars. Long-thin tubular lugs are likewise more frequently observed in early
phase of Yeşilova III (Derin 2007). At Agio Gala Lower Cave the tubular lugs are also
pretty thin-long and set in pairs (Hood 1981). Besides, they have a unique characteristic
that is attested nowhere else. A good number of tubular lugs found there have a tail on
one side (Fig. 6.6). Such a technique is clearly an innovation of Chios potters that has no
comparisons on the mainland.
Some Ege Gübre vessels also show a curious application of tubular lugs to the inside of
the vessel mouth. As far as I know, application of tubular lugs to the inner side of the
vessel is not found at other Central-West Anatolian sites, but very analogous lugs have
been found at Hacılar VI and basal Menteşe (Mellaart 1970: Pl. LIV and Roodenberg et
al. 2003: Fig. 13 respectively). As a result, in the light of Ulucak data one can tentatively
associate long-thin tubular lugs, especially when they are set in pairs, with earlier stages
of Neolithic than the later phases. In later phases, tubular lugs decrease in amount and
they tend to be shorter but the transition is so gradual and without meaningful patterning
it would be misleading to apply solely this criterion to date material.
Detailed descriptions of other types of lugs and knobs have not been provided in most
reports. Single knobs, double-knobs and pierced knobs appear in the Ulucak assemblage
and, except for the double-knobs, are observed throughout the sequence. Double-knobs
disappear with building phase IVi onwards and are not found in Level V. Single knobs
are known from Yeşilova III and Agio Gala too.
Handles are very rare during the Neolithic in the entire region and are only attested at
Yeşilova III Early-Late and Ulucak IV in small numbers. At Late Ulucak IV, small
vertical handles placed on the rim of necked jars can be considered typical. Another
peculiar feature of the same stage is the horizontal knob right below the rim. Both of
these features do not exist in Level V. Small vertical handles on the vessel bodies appear
occasionally at both levels, except at Level Vb.
251
Another morphological feature that seems to be limited to few of the Central-West
Anatolian sites is the ellipsoid bodies and oval bases which is a well-defined feature of
Ulucak IV. Only at Ege Gübre and Agio Gala (one piece on Hood 1981: Fig. 41, 272)
similar oval variants of bases are attested. Ulucak IVi-Vb is also devoid of ellipsoid
forms and oval bases. Oval forms seem to be a peculiarity of late stages at Ulucak and in
the region appearing only around 6000-5900 cal. BCE. Absence of these at Dedecik-
Heybelitepe, for instance, is an indication of LN occupation of the site (Herling et al.
2008: 21).
Another significant morphological change observed on bases is the increase of the
simple flat bases at Ulucak IV while Ulucak V included almost exclusively disc bases
which are found all over the region. Since disc bases continue into the later stages of
Neolithic sequence, it is hard to utilize this trait as a chronological marker. Nevertheless,
it would not be wrong to associate the disc bases with pre-6000/5900 BCE occupations
and simple flat bases with EC settlements. For instance, it seems like the dominance of
disc bases at Dedecik-Heybelitepe (Herling et al. 2008: 21) is chronologically
meaningful and point to a pre-6000 BCE inhabitation of the site. Ring bases appear
scarcely in the region, apparently not preferred by the potters. Yeşilova III Late, Ulucak
IV-V and Agio Gala have few examples of ring bases. There are base types which are
observed only at Ege Gübre: Rectangular, pedestal and ‘stepped-cross’ shaped bases
(personal observation). All types are innovative features observed only at Ege Gübre in
the region. Presence of high pedestal base is especially meaningful but may imply post-
5700 BCE occupation at the site or an influence from Karanovo or Sesklo ceramics
production.
To conclude, by taking the ceramic data from Ulucak IV-V into consideration, one can
establish few but significant chronological traits that can be used to create a sequence.
Among the early ceramics, morphological traits like hole-mouth jars with globular
bodies and thin-long vertical tubular lugs set in pairs, disc bases, maybe spouts can be
considered. A later, or developed ceramic phase, would consist of vessels with larger
sizes (like storage vessels from Ulucak IVb), jars with long necks, thick flattened rims,
more variety of knobs and lugs (double-knobs), less dominance of tubular lugs, tendency
to produce containers with simple flat bases, anthropomorphic vessels and ellipsoid
forms having oval bases. Oval bases, anthropomorphic vessels and large sized storage
vessels are peculiar to the late stage at Ulucak IV (specifically to IVb), which are lacking
252
at Çukuriçi, Dedecik-Heybelitepe and Yeşilova. For the time being, it can be suggested
that the habitation at these three sites ended before Ulucak IVa-b. Oval bases, but no
anthropomorphic vessels and large storage vessels, are attested at Ege Gübre and Agio
Gala Upper Cave which make us believe that both sites might have been continued to be
inhabited until Ulucak IVb.
In terms of fabric, RSBW is present in both stages without a distinctive change in the
appearance. The most important change observed at Ulucak is the preference of mineral
inclusions in the early stage (Va-b) whereas chaff becomes ubiquitous in the upper levels
(Level IV). A similar phenomenon is observed between Yeşilova’s Early-Middle and
Late III phases. However since a clear-cut distinction is not available, one has to be
cautious about using this criterion singly to date archaeological material.
There are however additional transformations in the wares that assist us for relative
dating. Presence of CSBW and brown burnished wares in the early levels at Ulucak,
especially sudden increase of brown burnished wares with phase Vb, provide us with
clear chronological distinctions. Yeşilova III Middle-Late, Ege Gübre, Çukuriçi and
Agio Gala have CSBW in their assemblages. Five pieces of cream slipped pottery
fragments are also identified at Dedecik-Heybelitepe (Herling et al. 2008: 21). Cream
slipped and red sipped wares co-exist at Ulucak in both levels.
Fig. 6.7: Suggested relative chronology for Central-West Anatolia.
253
Brown burnished wares, however, are not known in other sites. It is worth noting that in
Ulucak Vb brown burnished ware makes up 24% and in Level Va around 30% of the
assemblage. Their number drop to 15% with late phases of Level IV (IVh-k) while in the
later stages their amount decreases gradually but CSBW never disappears completely.
On the other side, absence of impressed wares in Vb (and earlier phases Vc-f), is an
important signifier for us. In level Vf, brown burnished wares constitute 36% of the
ceramics.
Impressed pieces, whether on RSBW or Gray Wares, make up around 3-5% of ceramics
at Ulucak’s single building phases with only exception of phases that are earlier than Vb.
Disappearence of impressed wares with a certain level is only seen at Yeşilova III
whereas Çukuriçi, Dedecik-Heybelitepe and Ege Gübre seems to have yielded impressed
pottery in all of its excavated deposits. Presence of earlier deposits without the impressed
wares cannot be excluded for Ege Gübre and Çukuriçi as possible early deposits remain
unexcavated. However, at Dedecik-Heybelitepe there is only one layer with LN-EC
pottery is identified which includes 1% impressed pottery (Herling et al. 2008: 21). This
indicates that the site was founded after the impressed pottery production in the region
began.
Mica Glimmer Ware, another trait of Level V, is seemingly solely found at Ulucak,
therefore cannot be utilized for correlation with other settlements. These early wares
have not been attested at Dedecik-Heybelitepe which however might result from the
limited scale of the excavations carried out at the site. With the available data we can set
Dedecik-Heybelitepe contemporary with Ulucak Early IV (6100-6000 cal. BCE).
Existence of stone foundations, mineral temper, the vessel forms, long-thin tubular lugs,
presence of cream slipped wares, disc bases and impressed wares all point out a horizon
that corresponds to Ulucak’s early building phases of IV. Yeşilova III Early without the
impressed wares can be set contemporaneous with Ulucak’s Vb-f. In order words, the
basal Yeşilova should have been settled around 6500-6400 cal. BCE when an occupation
at Ulucak already existed. Ege Gübre’s earliest deposits however do not go as early as
Ulucak Vb-e as impressed wares are found in all levels. Interestingly, Agio Gala
publications do not include any impressed sherds however presence of bead-rims and
oval bases at the caves make us suggest that the sequence there covers both Ulucak V
and IV. Especially forms from the Agio Gala Lower Cave with thin-long tubular lugs set
in pairs on jars and presence of brown wares indicate an earlier date for that specific
254
material. Since the stratigraphical situation at the caves is not reliable, it is suffice to say
both stages known at Ulucak are found there. We conclude that Ege Gübre, Dedecik-
Heybelitepe and perhaps Çukuriçi are not as early as Ulucak’s Vb-e. Çukuriçi is of great
interest since the ceramic forms, especially the hole-mouth jar mentioned above and
presence of CSBW, considered with the absence of oval bases, anthropomorphic vessels
and big sized jars, indicate contemporaneity with Ulucak Va-b than Ulucak IV. Yeşilova
III presents a longer sequence which shows many parallels to Ulucak sequence (Fig.
6.7).
B. Southwestern Anatolia (Muğla and Aydın)
There are no systematic excavations conducted in this part of Turkey that investigate
specifically Neolithic period. There were however few surveys which revealed
archaeological material that is of interest to us. We will include in this section, material
discovered from one trench at Aphrodisias-Pekmez, the Latmos rock paintings and
surveys conducted by E. Akdeniz (1997), S. Günel (2003; 2006) and S. Yaylalı (2006).
The Aegean islands (the Dodecanese) in close proximity to the Southwest Anatolian
coast were not permanently inhabited during the 7-6th millennia BCE (Cherry 1990:
170).
1. Aphrodisias-Pekmez
Aphrodisias is located close to town Karacasu in province Aydın on an alluvium plain in
a valley formed by Dandalas River which is a tributary of Büyük Menderes River. The
site is 600 m above the seas level. Baba Dağ, 2308 m, rises to the north of the site. The
mound where the prehistoric remains were excavated is called “Pekmez” which has a
height of 13 m and diameter of 125 m and is located to the East of ancient city of
Aphrodisias (Joukowsky 1986: 19). Two trenches were excavated on this mound, one of
which revealed pottery similar to Hacılar IX-VI (Joukowsky 1986: 431). The “unit
1599” or “Level VIIIC” from Trench II described as a whitish clay deposit revealed a
few red-on-white painted pottery (Joukowsky 1986: 59).
The pottery from this deposit is mainly monochrome with dark cores, red slipped,
burnished and mottled. Upon her comparison of the pottery from this unit with Hacılar
pottery stored at British Archaeological Institute in Ankara, Joukowsky (1986: 431)
points out that the most similar wares are found among Hacılar VII material. The pottery
from this deposit included also four impressed sherds, which are illustrated on a black
255
and white photo in the final publication. These are catalogued as “incised coarse ware”
and described as weak coarse red ware with black core. From the photo it is clearly
visible that these are the same wares of what we call “Central-West Anatolian type
impressed wares” (or the so-called ‘Impresso A’). The impressions are irregular, shallow
and look like nail impressions and continuous impressions are not observed. Tubular
lugs, single knobs and double knobs are also recorded. As a result, red slipped and
burnished pottery and impressed pottery are attested at Pekmez confirming the existence
of LN settlements in the region and presence of impressed pottery in this inland area.
Presence of impressed pottery points out similarity with Central-West Anatolian sites
while it poses a contrast to Lake District sites where impressed wares are sporadically
attested (see below). No mentioning of Hacılar type painted pottery is made in the report.
2. Latmos (Beşparmak) Mountain
In this section we would like to summarize results of a survey conducted on mountain
Latmos and its surrounding area by Peschlow-Bindokat (2003: 18; Abb.13) who
discovered 125 caves and rock shelters that housed rock paintings as well as some
pottery. Latmos is a mountain range located to the east of Lake Bafa, which was one of
the most important bays in the southern Aegean coast prior to 3rd century BCE before the
massive silt brought constantly by Menderes River cut its connection from the sea. The
rock art discovered during the surveys is homogeneous in style and execution. The paint
is in most cases red, made with iron oxides. The shapes are usually naturalistic and
stylized anthropomorphic designs, men and women can be distinguished, while
geometric or abstract shapes and hand motifs accompany these. Animal representations
are rarely encountered (Peschlow-Bindokat 2003: 60).
Associated with the rock art in some cases pottery and lithic material, blades and
polished axes, were found. Most of the pottery cannot be dated due to heavy weathering
of the surface (Peschlow-Bindokat 2002: 256). However pottery and idols of Late
Chalcolithic-EBA age is reported to be found in one of the case called Malkayası.
Presence of grinding stones and other lithic material indicate habitation of the cave. One
rimsherd from Malkayası has red painted designs on its cream colored inner surface. The
design is a lozenge shaped net pattern. Red-on-cream painted pottery indicates presence
of EC in the cave.
256
3. General Overview of Sites Surveyed In addition to above mentioned projects, several extensive surveys have been conducted
in the region by several archaeologists. French (1965: 18-19) discovered three sites,
Hamidiye, Karakurt and Kavaklıkahve, in the upper Büyük Menderes Valley in
provinces Aydın and Denizli where he found fine RSBW with organic inclusions. One
LN-EC site called Çandır Höyük in Denizli Region discovered by Todd is mentioned in
TAY (Harmankaya et al. 1997). Akdeniz (1997) undertook a survey in the Büyük
Menderes Valley where he designated Tavşan Adası as “Neolithic”. On Saplıada
however he could not identify distinct Neolithic finds in contrast to Voigtländer.
Kiliktepe, a mound close to Miletos, contained prehistoric material including RSBW and
tubular lugs (Voigtländer 1983). Lohmann (1995: 304) reports finding seven
“Fischercamps” in the vicinity of Miletos which he dates to LN-EC.
Altınkum Plajı in Aydın is another find spot which was dated roughly dated to between
to 5500-3900 BCE by Gebel (1985). During surveys directed by Günel in Aydın (2003,
2006) mound Tepecik yielded red-on-cream pottery while Köprüova contained red
slipped pottery with tubular lugs which indicated LN occupation at the site. Excavations
have begun at Tepecik-Çine in 2004 which confirmed existence of cream-on-red painted
pottery at the mound, although corresponding architectural remains are not excavated
extensively yet due to the overlying Bronze Age deposits (Günel 2007).
Finally, Yaylalı summarizes the prehistoric find spots from Muğla Province, some of
which have been tentatively dated to Neolithic or LN-EC in the light of pottery and lithic
evidence that is compared to Hacılar. These potentially “Neolithic” find spots are called
Pınarlık, Malkayası, İsa Mağarası, Fethiye-Eceler Höyük and Girmeler Mağarası
(Yaylalı 2006: 11).
As a result, in the light of these researches one can easily confirm that Aydın and Muğla
Regions were inhabited during the LN-EC period. Habitation was distributed to several
ecological environments, i.e. coastal areas, alluvial plains and mountains. The high
density of Latmos rock art is important to recognize with respect to the existence of
settlements that preferred high elevations on mountains. Unfortunately, except for
Aphrodisias and Tepecik-Çine, none of the data comes from excavations but are
restricted to random surface collections. Presence of RSBW, red-on-cream wares,
impressed wares and tubular lugs are confirmed thorough these projects which point out
257
habitation especially at the time of Ulucak IV, but detailed comparisons have to await
systematic excavations.
C. Troas and Gökçeada
Troas is one of the regions in Turkey where Neolithic horizon is not well-defined due to
the lack of Neolithic-oriented surveys and excavations. Systematic surveys which
targeted pre-Bronze Age find spots have been undertaken by Özdoğan and his team in
the 1980’s. These extensive surveys which concentrated both on the alluvial plains and
littoral areas such as Çan, Biga and Bayramiç, revealed around 15 prehistoric sites, from
the Paleolithic to Iron Ages, mainly belonging to Kumtepe IB or Troia I era. Among
these find spots such as Çalca, Gavurtarla and Anzavurtepe contained lithic material
which is dated to Mesolithic-Neolithic age (Özdoğan 1989).
Özdoğan and Gatsov (1998: 214-219) propose that Aceramic permanent settlements
might have existed in the area in the light of material collected from Çalca and
Musluçeşme. Çalca Mevkii is located on a river terrace belonging to Karlıdere Stream in
Çan district, covering an area 250 x 150 m. At the site, evidence of mound formation and
presence of macro-blades, end scrapers, single-platform cores when considered with
absence of pottery points out to the existence of a PPN site. Anzavurtepe and Gavurtarla
in Biga district revealed similar lithic material, flint and obsidian, characterized by blade
based industry which may also belong to an EN horizon (Özdoğan 1989: 447-450).
Yet another possible PPN site, Musluçeşme, identified through the high concentration of
lithics and polished axes, has been documented in Manyas-Balıkesir, located on one of
the high terraces of Lake Manyas (Özdoğan and Gatsov 1998: 214). Musluçeşme lithic
assemblage contains mostly flint but also obsidian micro-cores, single-platform cores,
end-scrapers, blades and notched tools. Özdoğan, drawing on the nature of the lithic
material collected from these sites and absence of pottery, envisages a possible PPN
horizon in Troas and Marmara Region in general, although he asserts that systematic
excavations are needed in order to test the accuracy of this statement (Özdoğan and
Gatsov 1998: 223).
There is only one pottery Neolithic find spot from the southwest of Troas, Coşkuntepe,
which is worth mentioning as it presents us with ceramics material that is highly
analogous to Ulucak. Another site from LN-EC horizon has been discovered on
Gökçeada which is called Uğurlu. Material from both sites has been preliminarily
258
published in several short articles (Seeher 1990; Takaoğlu 2005; 2006; Harmankaya and
Erdoğu 2003 and Erdoğu 2003). Coşkuntepe was subject to an intensive survey while
excavations are planned at Uğurlu on Gökçeada by the surveyors.
1. Coşkuntepe
Coşkuntepe, a flat settlement on the southwestern tip of Biga Peninsula in Troas, is
located on a promontory overlooking the Aegean Sea from 230 m above sea level. There
is a freshwater source very close to the site. The surface finds contained pottery from
multiple periods ranging from Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age to
Hellenistic and Roman periods (Seeher 1990: 9). Green and opaque properties of the
obsidian from Coşkuntepe led the researcher to interpret the source of the raw material
as the Melos Island (Takaoğlu 2005: 424).
Takaoğlu (2005: 424) suggests that the site was used as a quern-production site during
the Neolithic as many pounding and grinding stones in different stages of production
have been found on the slopes located 200 m away from the settlement area. This is an
interesting hypothesis but how Takaoğlu dates these grinding instruments specifically
and solely to the Neolithic age remains unmentioned in his article. It is known that site
was occupied in later prehistoric and historic periods and typologically it is almost
impossible to date grinding-pounding instruments.
Ceramic material collected from the surface is highly reminiscent of RSBW of West
Anatolia which indicates a LN-EC occupation on the site. Seeher (1990: 11) and
Takaoğlu (2005: 422) describe the Neolithic pottery as fine, grit tempered, slipped and
well-burnished. Surface colors are dominated by red, dark red and yellowish red. Painted
examples and chaff as temper are completely absent. The most common forms are jars
with flattened rims, bowls with convex and ‘s’-shaped profiles. Vertically placed tubular
lugs, pierced knobs and carinated flat bases are also very common. One fragment of
incised and white filled Fikirtepe box fragment has also been found by Seeher (Seeher
1990: Fig. 1.22). During the systematic surface collection undertaken by Takaoğlu,
fragment of an incised stamp has been recovered which he compares to specimens
known from Körös and Starčevo sites (Takaoğlu 2005: Fig. 4.12).
2. Uğurlu
Uğurlu is described as a low mound located on the western side of Gökçeada (Imbros),
only 2.5 km away from the current coastline between Capes İnce and Aktaş
259
(Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2003: Fig. 1). The site owes its name to the nearby village
which is situated 1 km to the Northeast. Surveys undertaken by Burçin Erdoğu of
University of Thrace and Savaş Harmankaya of Istanbul University in 1997-1999
identified the site along with other eleven prehistoric sites, all of which post-date
Neolithic age.
Uğurlu covers an area of 300 x 100 m. The mound formation has been damaged by
various constructions of road and irrigation canals (Harmankaya and Erdoğu 2003: 463).
Early Bronze and Chalcolithic Age pottery is accompanied by “EN” pottery. The
“Neolithic” dating of the site relies on the pottery which is well comparable to West
Anatolian red slipped wares. The surface pottery is mineral and chaff tempered, red
slipped, burnished and occasionally mottled. Apart from the red slipped wares, black
burnished specimens have also been observed. The walls are thin. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles, bead-rims, vertically placed tubular lugs, short and long variants, and ring and
flat bases are commonly found in the assemblage. One fragment of zoomorphic vessel
has also been detected. Lithics, all out of flint, indicate a blade based industry (Erdoğu
2003: 16; Fig. 4; Erdoğu 2005: 97-98).
3. Comparisons with Ulucak Ceramics
Both sites are highly significant as to the
presence and nature of LN-EC
settlements in the Troas and on
Gökçeada. Uğurlu is additionally
important because virtually nothing is
known on the colonization of Gökçeada
by early farmers. The fact that they
produced almost exclusively fine red
slipped pottery with tubular lugs and ‘s’-
shaped profiles indicates their West
Anatolian connections and perhaps
origin.
When compared to Ulucak IV-V
assemblage, many parallels are detected
in the pottery fabrics and morphology. Figure 6.8: Neolithic pottery from Coşkuntepe (after Seeher 1990: Abb. 1)
260
Jars with thick flattened rims from Coşkuntepe are very well comparable to Ulucak IV
jars. Bowls with convex and ‘s’-shaped profiles with simple or everted rims are likewise
very typical for Ulucak V-IV. Tubular lugs, short and long variants, and pierced knobs
are found at both levels in Ulucak, too. Flat carinated bases are especially a feature of
Ulucak V but they definitely continue into the latest phases of Level IV (Fig. 6.8).
Coşkuntepe pottery differs from Ulucak pottery due to its grit temper. At Ulucak,
especially with Level IV, chaff is commonly used as tempering material while Level V is
clearly dominated by wares with mineral temper. One clue about the dating of
Coşkuntepe pottery might be the absence of necked jars, oval forms and carinated forms
which would have indicated EC horizon than LN. On the contrary, jars without necks
and ‘s’-shaped profiled bowls together with tubular lugs are well-defined characteristics
of LN pottery in this region. On the other hand, cream slipped and dark colored
burnished wares seem to be lacking at the site. This situation does not seem to be a result
of the sampling strategy. Lack of cream slipped wares and dark colored burnished wares
might be related to regional characteristics of Troas or, another alternative is, that
Coşkuntepe was settled for a short time at the very end of the LN period when red
slipped wares clearly dominated the pottery assemblages just like at Ulucak IVb. For the
time being, it is simply not possible to be more precise about dating of Coşkuntepe
beyond what Seeher and Takaoğlu already suggested.
Uğurlu Neolithic pottery has many similarities
with Coşkuntepe and Ulucak as well. However,
the type of well-defined bead-rims from Uğurlu
(Erdoğu 2003: Fig. 4) are not matched at
Ulucak. Bead-rims are found at Ulucak only in
level IVb which is dated to the early 6th
millennium cal. BCE. Bead-rims are not
common in Lake District or Central Anatolia,
but rather a feature commonly found on pottery
from Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük. In other
words, bead-rims are more associated with the
EC horizon and they are absent in the LN
assemblage from Ulucak. Ring bases are
likewise rarely found at Ulucak, but they appear in both levels. Long-thin vertically
Figure 6.9: Red slipped pottery from Uğurlu (after Erdoğu 2005: Fig. 1)
261
placed tubular lugs, as observed on Fig 6.9, are more characteristic of Level V than
Level IV at Ulucak. They indicate a LN date than EC. Harmankaya and Erdoğu (2003:
464) compare some black burnished and black-red-cream sherds to Hoca Çeşme III
material. The pottery from Uğurlu contains both mineral and chaff temper. At Ulucak,
chaff tempered pottery is ubiquitous in Level IV whereas mineral temper is associated
more with Level V. It is not clear for now if same association goes true for Gökçeada
and Troas Region. If this is the case, we can perhaps suggest that Gökçeada pottery
belong to two successive horizons.
In the light of available published material from this region, it is not possible to infer
more on the nature of Neolithic communities who inhabited the region. What more or
less clear is their strong organic ties to the West Anatolian communities as indicated by
the fine red slipped and burnished pottery. Characteristics of Fikirtepe Culture pottery is
almost absent, except for the incised “Fikirtepe box” fragment from Coşkuntepe.
D. Lake District
Lake District is one of the best researched regions in Turkey with regards to the
Neolithic horizon. Region’s karstic geomorphology is an advantage for extensive
surveys. In contrast to Central-West Anatolia, alluvial silting is not a problem that buries
the settlement mounds, making them invisible from the surface. The pollen record
indicates that with 6700 cal. BCE onwards mixed forests of oaks, pine and juniper and
low herbs were predominating the vegetation in the area (Kuzucuoğlu 2002: 42).
Mellaart’s excavations at Hacılar in 1957-1960 have been followed by Duru’s successive
excavations in the region since the early 1990’s. Moreover, initial surveys of French
(1965) have been followed by long-term surveys undertaken in Burdur and Isparta
districts by M. Özsait of Istanbul University which spotted numerous sites with evidence
of Neolithic-Early Chalcolithic occupation as inferred through the red slipped
monochrome or mostly red-on-cream painted pottery which show typical traits such as
hole-mouth forms, ‘s’-shaped profiled open forms, carinated bowls and vertical tubular
lugs (Özsait 1985; 1986; 1993). Extensive surveys of Özsait confirmed the high
occupation density in this karstic region during the pottery Neolithic and Early
Chalcolithic.
Despite intensive research concentrating on the early sedentary villages, pre-Neolithic
sites are documented at a very few find spots. Of these, Baradız is probably the most
262
important as it is the only site which was subject to small-scale excavations by Şevket
Aziz Kansu in 1944. Baradız is a small open-air site southwest of Isparta, located on one
of the sand-dunes which belong to Lake Burdur. Kansu’s excavations revealed existence
of a microlithic industry characterized by micro-burins, geometric-tools and microlithic
cores which are dated to the Mesolithic period (Harmankaya and Tanındı 1996).
Existence of terminal Paleolithic and Epi-Paleolithic in the region is supplemented by
cave occupations on the Mediterranean coast. At Öküzini Cave, Antalya, stratigraphy
covering a time span from late Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic has been unearthed which
is divided into four phases. The carbon determinations point out that the cave was used
as a spring-summer camp-site from 16000-7000 cal. BCE. The late Upper Paleolithic
phase, phase I, is defined by non-microlithic industry which produced elongated blades.
The early Epi-Paleolithic remains, 14000-13000 cal. BCE, at the cave are composed of
microlithic tools such as trapezes, triangles and lunates, bones of ovicaprines as well as
beads and marine shells as bodily ornaments. Late Epi-Paleolithic phase, 13000-10500
cal. BCE, is likewise characterized by geometric microliths, accompanied by end-
scrapers, retouched blades and perforators as well as bone awls, needles and spatulas. It
is noted that the latest deposits defined by a Neolithic burial with ceramics and polished
axe contained lithics which carried both microlithic and Neolithic features (Otte et al.
1995).
Data from Baradız and Öküzini point towards the presence of Mesolithic occupations in
the region. Especially, Öküzini is extremely important, as it constitutes the only well-
dated and excavated site which encompasses deposits that are immediately preceding the
Neolithic occupation of the area.
Except for the doubtful Aceramic phase at Hacılar, no pre-pottery Neolithic sites have
been identified in the region. The nearest positively identified and excavated PPN site is
Suberde which is located on the western shore of Lake Suğla. We will present the data
from the site more in detail in the next section. However it should be note here even the
earliest phases contained few crudely made organic tempered ceramic sherds (Bordaz
1965: 32) indicating that the inhabitants were not entirely “Aceramic” in the sense that is
known from Southeast Anatolia. As a result, an “Aceramic” stage preceding the early
pottery Neolithic similar to Çatalhöyük East cannot be argued to have existed for the
region.
263
Archaeological evidence indicates that a gradual adaptation of agro-pastoral lifestyle by
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers did not take place in the region. The high number of sites
point out the dense occupation in the region during LN-EC periods. Below we will
present in detail the excavated Neolithic sites in the region.
1. Hacılar
1.1. General Overview of the Archaeological Research
The mound is located 26 km southwest of Burdur, 8 km south of Lake Burdur and 1.5
km west of village named Hacılar on the northern slopes of Taurus Mountains on an
altitude of more than 900 m. Koca Çay flows on the west side of the site. The site, with a
height of around five m from the ground level, was discovered by Şadi Balaban who
contacted James Mellaart and opened the way to archaeological investigations by the
latter. The excavations took place on the mound between 1957-1960, supervised by J.
Mellaart of British Archaeological Institute at Ankara. Mellaart uncovered occupational
levels that cover “Aceramic Neolithic”, “Late Neolithic” and “Early Chalcolithic”
periods on the mound represented by sixteen layers.
In 1985-1986, small scale excavations have been carried out by R. Duru in the vicinity
of Hacılar, who found in situ ceramics on a red painted floor in the vicinity of Hacılar, a
trait of “Aceramic Hacılar”, therefore he claimed that there are no Aceramic levels at
Hacılar as J. Mellaart once proposed (Duru 1989). It is worth here emphasizing that the
red colored hard surfaces found by Duru and his team were not located on the mound
Hacılar but 80-90 m away from it.57 This implies that the red colored floors found by
Mellaart and Duru do not correspond to the same deposits or even to same site. It
therefore becomes methodologically problematic to correlate both features.
On the other hand, Mellaart (1970) himself points out that a very limited area was
excavated from the aceramic level. Additionally, there is one statement in the second
preliminary report for Çatalhöyük, which makes us increasingly doubtful about the
presence of aceramic levels at Hacılar (Mellaart 1963: 44): “Pottery is so scarce even in
Level VI that it would have been possible to dig a 5-metre wide trench through the E
complex without finding a single sherd!” Therefore, it is clearly possible that where
pottery production is low in scale, discovery of sherds is also proportionately low.
Hacılar’s early deposits may also correspond to an early period in which pottery 57 This interesting fact was mentioned by Duru on a conference held in Istanbul (02.03.2009).
264
production was limited. Another contra-argument against aceramic Hacılar is the
presence of mudbrick architecture found in these deposits as this building material first
appears following mud-slab in Central Anatolia and wattle-and-daub in West Anatolia
towards the end of 7th millennium BCE in Anatolian Neolithic. One of the reasons for
Mellaart to argue for an early date for these levels was a single carbon date from charred
wood sample obtained from “Aceramic V” which provided the result 8700±180 BP
(8200-7550 cal BCE). It is not known whether this old date was correct, a result of old-
wood effect or wrong measurement. In short, “Aceramic Hacılar” might well have been,
as Reingruber puts it, a result of the Zeitgeist but also of small-scale excavation.58
The stratigraphy of the site originally constructed by Mellaart is as follows:
Final occupation IC-D Fortress IA-B …………………..Hiatus……………….. Fortified Settlement IIA-B Early Chalcolithic V-III Late Neolithic IX-VI ............................Hiatus........................... “Aceramic Neolithic” I-VII
Mellaart assigns seven sub-phases (I-VII) to his Aceramic settlement which lies directly
on virgin soil and is 1.5 m thick. In general Aceramic phases are badly preserved.
Aceramic IV-V have relatively better preserved architectural features including walls, a
courtyard, postholes, storage bins, hearths and ovens. One large courtyard (5 m wide and
more than 15 m long) and small rooms with a rectangular plan (around 4.5 m in width)
whose mudbrick walls did preserve up to an height of no more than 25 cm make up the
best preserved remains. Some of the walls contained stone foundations and plaster. A
number of floors were paved and subsequently plastered and even in some cases painted.
Fire installations were in the courtyard which according to Mellaart was a precaution
against danger of fire (Mellaart 1970: 4-5). One polished axe, several fragments of
marble bowls, stone and marble beads, chipped stones and various bone tools are among
the material cultural inventory. Three human skulls found on the various parts of the
courtyard from Phases VII, V and III are of interest as they might be representing
remains of a “skull cult” typical of Southwest Asian PPN but also found at Çatalhöyük
and Köşk Höyük. For our purposes, it is more interesting that Mellaart’s statement:
“...not a single potsherd was found and there was no figurines” (Mellaart 1961a: 73).
58 See Reingruber (2005: 157) who lists the EN sites in Greece which are also identified as “aceramic” during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s.
265
Not even one sherd in an area of around 150 m2 and 1.5 m thick accumulation may
sound convincing for designating these levels as “Aceramic” but, as we already
mentioned, a similar case was experienced at Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1970: 2; see also
Mellaart 1970: Figs. 3-4). Mellaart believes that the aceramic occupation was abandoned
and there is a hiatus following this event.
The LN period at the site is built partly on virgin soil partly on the so-called aceramic
settlement. The earliest deposits from this period, the Levels IX-VII, are badly
preserved, being confined to less than one meter of accumulation consisting of stone
foundations, floors, midden areas and pits. Levels VII-VIII are identified in area B, R
and E which yielded only scanty remains of walls, floors accompanied with pottery.
Remnants of Level VII, which Mellaart later called VIA, have also been excavated in
areas P and Q below massive remains of Level VI (Mellaart 1970: 9-11).
Level VI is the best-preserved LN level at Hacılar and has been excavated mainly in
areas P and Q, later also areas E and F. A number of adjacent rectangular mudbrick
houses with well-preserved inner architectural features as well as lightly covered
courtyards and open central areas have been exposed from this level. The houses that rise
on stone foundations have sizes that range from 5.5 x 6.5 to 5.5 x 10.5 m. Inner
divisions, window openings and screen walls are observed in most buildings. Roofs are
flat constructed and supported with wooden frames. Both walls and floors showed traces
of successive plastering. The entrance to the house is provided by a door opening,
marked with a wooden threshold, on the oblong side which faces a flat-topped oven and
a rectangular hearth on the opposite side. These were mostly in association with
platforms and benches. Rectangular clay boxes are also common feature found in the
buildings which according to Mellaart served as “fireboxes” (Mellaart 1970: 14). Square
shaped silos arranged side by side have been excavated in many buildings along the
walls. Lightly covered activity areas belonging to each house have also been found.
These included features like fire installations, grinding instruments, platforms, querns
and storage bins. Mellaart also describes areas called as “upper floors” which were used
as activity areas in the houses.
Hacılar VI contained substantial amounts of archaeological material. Apart from what
Mellaart calls “monochrome pottery”, human and animal figurines, well-made stone
bowls, lithics, polished axes, grooved stones, grinding stones, querns, loom weights,
266
stamp seals, bone spatula, sickles, pendants, beads, ear plugs, bracelets and limestone
slabs are among the archaeological finds uncovered in the deposits of Hacılar VI.
Hacılar V consists of badly preserved scanty remains of courtyard floors with painted
pottery and other types of finds. Mellaart notes that the new settlement was not erected
directly above the burnt remains of VI, but was rather moved to the south and east of
Hacılar VI. Hacılar IV, excavated in areas Band P, is likewise not substantial in
appearance; only one mudbrick house has been allotted to this settlement. Piles of sling
stones are common in these levels. The following level, Hacılar III, is similarly badly
preserved but apparently containing the same architectural traditions of the previous
levels. The settlement is again moved to further north and east (Mellaart 1970: 23-24).
Hacılar II is a settlement with size of 2000 m2, much smaller than Hacılar VI, but
surrounded by a thick (1.5-3 m) mudbrick wall with towers and gates, the reason why
Mellaart calls this phase as “the fortified village”. The houses have their rear walls
adjacent to the surrounding wall while their entrances face central open areas, which
Mellaart calls “West Court,” “North Court” and “South Court.” The houses are made out
of mudbrick and have porticoes. Mellaart identifies residential areas with a “granary”, a
potter’s workshop, a well and two shrines in the settlement (see Mellaart 1970: Pl. 19).
Shrines are identified as such because of the vast variety of painted pottery vessels,
objects and painted plasters found as well as burials built under the floors. On the other
hand, they also possess all the features domestic buildings have such the plan, ovens,
storage bins etc. Pottery workshops, an areas of three buttressed mudbrick buildings are
identified through the absence of some domestic features, such storage bins, platforms,
and presence of querns and mortars with red and ochre, lumps of ochre, stored clay,
many tools and objects that might be related to pottery production. Figurines, marble
containers, lithics, stamps, various bone objects and beads are unearthed from this
settlement.
Hacılar I, labeled as “the fortress”, was built following the destruction of Hacılar II, but
not directly above it, and following intensive leveling activities. Mellaart (1970: 75)
describes the architecture of Hacılar I as being “far more massive than anything ever
previously seen at Hacılar.” The excavated houses are clustered along the enclosure wall
around a central open area. Mudbrick walls, with thickness of two m and even more, are
built on one row of stone foundations and were plastered on both sides. Matting is
observed extensively in the houses. Apart from usual elements like hearths, ovens,
267
platforms and postholes, buttresses and staircases are frequently observed too. Door
openings could be located rarely, probably access to the houses was provided from the
second floor. The occupation of Hacılar I comes to an end with a sudden fierce fire
which is evidenced by human skeletons found in the buildings (Mellaart 1970: 75-76).
Interestingly, no specialized areas such as shrines and pottery workshops, were identified
at Hacılar I.
Hacılar IC-D building phases are few architectural remains, stone foundations and one
courtyard that are found above the burnt remains of Hacılar I.
Hacılar has been inhabited by an agro-pastoral community from the “Aceramic” levels
onwards who cultivated einkorn wheat, emmer wheat, bread wheat, barley and various
pulses (Halbaek 1970). Interestingly, the only domesticated mammal species from
Hacılar was dog whereas sheep-goat, red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, wild cattle, mouflon
and pig were consumed (Westley 1970: 245-246).
The lithic industry is dominated by blades and micro-blades produced from prismatic
cores. One cache of 363 micro-blades from Level VI is worth-mentioning. Flint clearly
dominates the raw material, although obsidian from Acıgöl-Topada has been attested at
the site (Mortensen 1970: 154-156).
Apart from the one sample from Aceramic V discussed above, four carbon dates are
available from LN Hacılar and two additional dates are measured from levels IIA and
IA. Hacılar IX sample provides 7340±94 BP. Hacılar VII is dated to 7770±180 BP. Two
dates from Hacılar VI is as follows: 7550±180 and 7350±85 BP. These provide a time
span from 6300-5700 cal. BCE for Hacılar IX-I (Thissen 2002: 318).
1.2. Ceramics
Mellaart (1970: 99-101) defines two wares at Hacılar: Monochrome and painted. He
distinguishes the monochrome ware of Levels IX-VIII from VII-VI in terms of their
surface colors; the former having predominantly light grey and cream surface colors. The
paste, composed of “fine clays of Burdur area” includes small sized mineral inclusions
(grit) and mica. The surfaces are always burnished and shiny. Coarse wares are absent.
Pottery from Level IX is fine with mineral inclusions (including mica), monochrome,
sometimes mottled, unslipped, burnished, mostly light grey-cream-light brown (“buff”)
colored commonly accompanied by red slipped examples. Although rare, painted
268
examples are already present in the assemblage. Coarse wares and cooking wares are
almost absent. Common vessel shapes are small bowls, cups, bowls with flaring and
deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and jars with short necks. Everted rims are very
common. One deep bowl with basket handle distinguishes from the rest of the
assemblage (Mellaart 1970: Figs. 47,39). Tubular lugs and pierced knobs, mostly set in
pairs, on jars and deep bowls are common. One bowl with tubular lugs inside is likewise
a rare piece. Bases are carinated flat.
Pottery from Level VIII, low in quantity, is in many ways similar to the pottery of the
preceding level. Grey, cream, light brown colors persist while red washed and red
painted examples are present too. In the assemblage, hole-mouth bowls and jars, bowls
and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, jars with short necks as well as at least one jar
with oval and long neck is observed. Tubular lugs, rather short and thick, as well as
pierced knobs are common. Carination becomes more emphasized. Two bead-rims are
mentioned by Mellaart (1970: 104).
Level VII is characterized by an increase in the red-buff and brown slipped wares
together with painted wares. The vessel shapes from the previous levels do continue.
Lentoid jars with big globular bodies accompanied with thick-short tubular lugs or small
handles on shoulder and belly are characteristic of this early stage (see Mellaart 1970: Pl.
49; 16,17).
Level VI pottery is described as excellent in quality, slipped and burnished, red, red-
brown and buff with frequent mottling. Slip and paint, being the same material, are
obtained with a suspension of clay mixed with hematite (Stoves and Hodges 1970: 144).
Painted wares make up around 10% of the pottery. Among red-on-cream, few white
painted examples have also come to light, which is not observed until level I again. One
bowl with cross inside and another with on its outer side of its base (called “red cross
bowl” by Mellaart in his report from 1961a) reminds us the Ulucak Va example. The
patterns observed on painted vessels are simple, being confined to horizontal or vertical
bands, nets or “V” shapes. Bowls and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with
convex profiles, deep bowls with oval mouths, hole-mouth jars with globular or ellipsoid
bodies, jars with short necks are common. Tubular lugs, small vertical handles, pierced
knobs continue. One tubular lug with horns coming out it is of interest. “Jars with ledges
below rim” are distinctive. Several rare forms include one jars with rectangular or
lozenge shaped mouths, pedestals, theriomorphic vessels, one cup with the shape of a
269
human face, and lug in the rim. Jars with anti-splash rims are also worth mentioning.
Relief decoration on vessels, executed in a variety of forms, be it abstract or animal-
shaped are first attested in this level. Bucranium, mainly in upside down position, are
very common. Ibexes and scorpion are likewise attested. Human hand and one woman
face are seen on two separate examples (Mellaart 1970: 107-109).
In Level V, RSBW continues but they become less fine, while red-on-cream painted
ware increases in number and are extremely fine. Mellaart notes (1970: 110) that the size
of the monochrome vessels is smaller compared painted jars. Motifs on painted vessels
are more varied than in previous levels. Apart from wavy lies, bands, zig-zags, hatched
surfaces, hanging garlands, steps, and triangles, what Mellaart calls a “fantastic style” is
also observed. “Fantastic style” bears representations of bucrania, birds, various animals
and humans forms in a stylized abstract fashion. In terms of forms, many parallels are
observed with Level VI. Especially bowls, display clear carination on the belly and
shoulder. Oval mouths are still seen. The so-called “offering tables” also found in the
assemblage. Tubular lugs are less frequent, animal head handles are becoming common.
Level IV pottery is composed of monochrome, red-brown or buff burnished wares, and
red-on-cream painted pottery which now constitutes 35% of pottery. Bowls, especially
with carination and ‘s’-shaped profiles, jars with necks and globular or carinated bodies
are common. Animal head handles are likewise common whereas tubular lugs are
extremely rare. Some rims are incised or grooved. Bead-rims are also present. Bases are
flat, there are also few pedestals. Mellaart’s fantastic style, making 20% of all painted
examples, reaches a high point in this level. Bucrania, hand motif, birds and curving-
spiral shapes are commonly found.
Monochrome ware decreases further while painted wares increase in Level III. The
miniature bowls are presented as a new feature of monochrome wares from this level.
Plates, oval cups, carinated bowls and jars, jars with necks are common. A lentoid jar
with tubular lugs, typical of Levels IX-VI, has their last specimen from this phase.
Animal head handles are frequent; one example even contains obsidian inlays where the
eye of the animal should be (Mellaart 1970: 114).
In Level IIA-B, orange-buff burnished wares, but also red slipped wares, are still in
existence. Painted vessels dominate the assemblage with 65%. Miniature cups, carinated
bowls, jars with short and long necks, oval shaped deep bowls are very common.
270
Biconical jars are distinctive. Carination is very pronounced. Vertical small handles,
animal-head handles and knobs are seen, mainly right under the neck on jars.
Decorations are diverse, ranging from spirals, crosses, birds to complex designs and
human hands-arms. Relief decoration is also seen. Pouring elements on vessels in the
shape of animal heads is also an important feature of this level (Mellaart 1970: P. 99; 2).
Level I pottery is very much dominated by red-on-cream wares, although some white-
on-red examples have also been found. But fantastic style ends, motifs are linear while
bucrania are kept. Concentric circles or lozenges inside the bowls which can have large
diameters up to 60 cm. are common (Mellaart 1970: 136). Hanging garlands are
especially seen on white-on-red vessels. Forms are in a way similar to the previous
phase, with more emphasized carinations and deep bowls, jars with long vertical necks,
ovoid (egg shaped) jars and two small handles. Beakers, mugs, some jar types, wide
short bowls, square-rectangular bowls, vases, cups with inner partitions, horn handles,
spouts and anthropomorphic vessels are new. This level also witnesses, although very
few in number, incised, ribbed and impressed decorated sherds and vessels. One
impressed vessel is made on “coarse buff ware”.
1.3. Comparing Hacılar with Ulucak
According to the radiocarbon dates from the sites, Ulucak Vb and Hacılar IX-VIII may
be contemporary. Hacılar VI, dated roughly to 6000 cal. BCE, corresponds to Early
Ulucak IV (IVg-k). Hacılar V-I is roughly contemporary with Ulucak IV Early. Carbon
dates indicate that Hacılar I and Ulucak IVa have been abandoned in the same century,
around 5700 cal. BCE. Below we will evaluate the ceramic evidence from both sites.
Unfortunately a quantitative and technological analysis is not available in the final report
of Hacılar which impedes precise comparisons between two sites. At first sight there are
both close parallels and clear distinctions between the ceramic assemblage from Hacılar
and Ulucak. Absence of coarse wares or cooking wares at both sites is one important
aspect that is underlining similar attitudes towards pottery use and function. Absence of
a developed painted pottery tradition at Ulucak and in Central-West Anatolia in general,
is a very remarkable difference that proved to be hard to explain satisfactorily. I will try
to make a detailed account of these similarities and differences in terms of fabric and
morphology in order to construct a relative chronological scheme.
271
The fact that even the pottery from the earliest Hacılar Level IX includes red-on-cream
painted wares, CSBW and RSBW should not be ignored. It seems unlikely from the
descriptions of Mellaart “brown burnished ware” of Ulucak V was present at Hacılar. In
his catalogue (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 45), there are descriptions like “polished grey ware”,
“black burnished ware”, “blackish grey burnished ware” or ”buff burnished ware” which
might however correspond to our “CSBW” and “Brown Burnished Ware”. Mellaart’s
(1970: 101) general description of Hacılar IX-VIII pottery also indicate an assemblage
made of fine burnished wares with variety of colors including red, but with dominance
of grey and cream, with usually mottled surfaces. This might mean that the earliest
pottery at Hacılar was more comparable to Early Ulucak IV, especially IVh-k, and Va.
Absence of dark colored burnished wares at LN Hacılar, a significant ware group of
Ulucak Vb, might indicate that dark burnished wares were not adapted at Hacılar IX.
Another similarity with Ulucak Early IV-Va is the dominance of mineral inclusions at
Hacılar, which however seem to have stayed as a rule until the end of the settlement,
therefore is not helpful in terms of dating. The transition to chaff tempered wares in
Ulucak IV Late is not attested at Hacılar.
Forms from Hacılar IX are extremely reminiscent to Ulucak V form repertoire, although
similarities with Ulucak IV are also observed. Dominance of bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles, hole-mouth jars with globular bodies, globular jars with short necks are well-
defined characteristic of Ulucak V. Hacılar IX bowls and jars would be equally at home
at Ulucak Va-b (Fig. 6.10). Presence and frequency of tubular and pierced lugs,
especially the way they are set in pairs on jar shoulders, is also attested well in Ulucak
Figure 6.10: 1-4: Ulucak Vb 5: Hacılar IX (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 46:6) 6: Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 54: 10) 7: Hacılar IX (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 45:21) 8: Hacılar IX (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 46:27) 9: Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 51: 14)
272
V. Preference of carinated flat bases is another characteristic of Ulucak Va-b that is
echoed at Hacılar IX.
One important distinction I have noticed is the presence of carination on some Hacılar
IX bowls (see Mellaart 1970. Pl. 45: 12,13,27) which is not known from Ulucak V at all.
Additionally, the bowl with basket handle and footed vessels are features that are
unknown from Ulucak IV-V. Tubular lug that is placed inside of a vessel is absent at
Ulucak but is observed at Ege Gübre.
The following levels, Hacılar VIII-VII, encompass all features of the previous level in
terms of fabric and forms. What is different is one rim fragment belonging to a jar with
everted neck that has an egg-shaped mouth (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 48, 20). Such jars are
found in the entire Ulucak assemblage, but egg-shaped mouths are completely absent at
Ulucak. Small handles are also present in the Hacılar assemblage, a very rare feature for
Ulucak pottery, although not totally absent. Hole-mouth bowls from Hacılar VIII remind
us the same type of bowls from Ulucak Va-b. One vessel type that is very peculiar to
Hacılar IX-VI and never appears at Ulucak are the so-called “lentoid vessels”. No
parallels can be established for this vessel form in the entire Central-West Anatolia.
The quantity of pottery from Hacılar VI is higher and
more varied in comparison to earlier levels from the site.
There is a clear tendency towards more production of
RSBW and CSBW, while at the same time red-on-cream
wares increase gradually. RSBW from this level are
extremely fine with clear red-dark red surfaces and
burnishing that make them extremely shiny. Painted
vessels have usually motifs that are composed of vertical bands. Except for the increase
in painted wares, there is not much to distinguish at both sites at this stage. Cross shaped
paint inside bowls from Hacılar VI (see Mellaart 1970: Pl. 59.8-9) can be easily
comparable to the bowl with cross inside from Ulucak Va. Linear designs are actually
the only type of decoration seen on painted sherds from Ulucak, however they are
mostly confined to small sized bodysherds therefore it is hard to make any assumptions
on the motif painted on the entire vessel body. Upside down “V” shape seen on a cream-
on-red rimsherd from IVi can be compared to geometric and zig-zag paintings on Hacılar
V vessels. Another rimsherd from the same deposit displays one horizontal band on rim
and two vertical bands that protrude from this thick horizontal band (Fig. 6.11). This
Figure 6.11: Red-on-cream painted rim sherd from Ulucak Early IV (IVi). Vertical bands that run from rim towards the vessel body is a trait of Hacılar VI.
273
type of decoration is known from two major Lake District sites, e.g. Hacılar VI and
Kuruçay 12. One interesting point we can make here about the painted pieces from
Ulucak is that the ones from Level IVb are of red-on-cream type, like the ones from
Hacılar VI-II while sherds found in earlier building phases (IVh-k) are mostly cream-on-
red. Red-on-cream wares are also attested at Level Va which does not allow us to make
chronological correlations depending on the color of the paint. Both varieties might have
been produced at the site and were transported from somewhere else.
The typical ‘s’-shaped profiled and convex profiled bowls make up important part of the
Hacılar VI assemblage while bowls with rather flaring profiles are also there. Deep
bowls and jars with ‘s’-shaped profiles and hole-mouth jars with globular bodies, very
well known from Ulucak IV-V, are also represented. Parallel to Ulucak ceramic
assemblage tubular lugs, rather short, are still commonly seen on Hacılar VI bowls and
jars. Two illustrated small sized jar with four lugs on shoulder (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 54.11;
55.1) have their “twin sisters” from Ulucak IVh, Va and Çukuriçi Höyük.
Jars with long vertical necks, oval shapes, plastic decorations, and bead-rims, especially
well-known from Ulucak IVa-c, are seen at Hacılar VI which, in my opinion, are
important chronological markers. Decrease in the number of tubular lugs is also
paralleled at Ulucak where with Level IV there is a marked decrease in the number of
tubular lugs in general. There are however a good number of Hacılar traits that remain
unmatched at Ulucak: Lentoid jars, anti-splash rims, carination on bowls, lugs on the
inside, pedestals, lozenge shaped vessel mouth, jars with ledges below rim, cross shaped
bases and animal shaped vessels. Cross shaped bases and tubular lugs inside a vessel are
at least attested at Ege Gübre in Central-West Anatolia while others are completely
absent in the entire region. It is probable that these shapes and applications are specific
to Hacılar and Lake District pottery production tradition. Therefore it would not be far-
fetched to interpret these traits as “local” instead of placing Hacılar VI somewhere later
than Ulucak IVb.
One should also mention that there is one vessel shape at Ulucak that is not found at
Hacılar until Level I, e.g. the anthropomorphic vessel. One effigy jar in the shape of
human face from Level VI is the most comparable specimen to human shaped vessels
from Ulucak, both representing a woman. Two examples of such vessels are found at
Ulucak IVb, one of them is red-on-cream painted, the other monochrome red slipped and
burnished. The appearance of real anthropomorphic vessels as late as Hacılar I is
274
intriguing in terms of dating, because none of the elements that are peculiar to Hacılar I
can be found at Ulucak IVb.
A close inspection of anthropomorphic
vessels from Ulucak IVb and Hacılar I
reveals that Hacılar example is extensively
painted while Ulucak example is modestly
decorated (Fig. 6.12). They are both red-
on-cream painted. Ulucak vessel was
exposed to secondary firing therefore
surface color or any evidence of burnish
was lost. Both have their hands bended and
attached to body, but Hacılar example holds a cup in hand while Ulucak example holds
her tiny breasts. Hacılar vessel has obsidian inlays where the eyes should be. The face
unfortunately is not preserved on Ulucak vessel. In Ulucak example the feet are slightly
articulated while the lower body of Hacılar vessel was re-constructed by Mellaart. The
painting on the Ulucak specimen show parallel fine lines on the front and vertical fine
zig-zags on the back. Hacılar vessel likewise has vertical zig-zags on its back, but they
are not as fine as the Ulucak painting. Despite differences in style the concept is the
same. However it should be mentioned here that Hacılar vessel was recovered during an
illicit excavation and was sold to a museum in Istanbul. Mellaart claims to have found
sherds belonging to this vessel “at the bottom of robber’s trench in Room 6” (Mellaart
1970: Fig. 249). As fragments of other effigy vases were found in level I, this dating
seems to be correct.
Another feature that is not found in pre-Hacılar I assemblage is the impressed wares that
are represented at Ulucak IV making up around 5% of pottery. Impressed wares seem to
be lacking at northern Lake District, while a number of examples have been published
from Höyücek “Mixed Accumulation” in the southern Lake District region (Duru-
Umurtak 2005: Pls. 95-96). The presence of impressed vessels, though rare, in Hacılar I
repertoire is interesting because when considered together with the anthropomorphic
vessel, these may imply contemporaneity which seems to be supported by the carbon
data. Level IVb is dated to 5900-5700 cal. BCE through two carbon samples. On the
other hand, apart from these two traits, parallels between Hacılar I and Ulucak IVb
assemblages are not extensive.
Figure 6.12: Left: Ulucak IVb; Right: Hacılar I.
275
Same interpretation goes for Hacılar V-IV, which by and large remains very similar to
Hacılar VI fabrics and typology, but witness a clear increase in “fantastic style”, animal
head handles, grooved rims, and “offering tables”. What is striking about Hacılar V
pottery is the pronounced carination on bowls and deep bowls which become slowly a
defining trait of Hacılar pottery. Jars from Level V, whether with long or short necks,
having larger volumes, find their close parallels at Ulucak IV. With Hacılar IV, jars are
likewise made with sharp angles on the belly. Almost all jars have a rounded body at
Ulucak, only exception is the big storage jar from Ulucak IVb.
Offering tables might also help relative dating Ulucak IV. Two offering tables are found
at Ulucak’s IVb deposits. At Hacılar these appear with Level V-IV and continue into
Hacılar II.
Levels III-II at Hacılar are associated with the Fortified Village described above. These
are levels in which red-on-cream painted wares become dominant while monochrome
wares are confined to red and cream slipped burnished wares. Carinated bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profile, bowls with lower wide bellies, jars with long necks, hole-mouth jars with
widening bellies and handles, oval or ovoid shapes, lentoid vessels, offering tables,
animal shaped handles, pedestals and shallow bowls constitute the vessel forms from
these levels. Although they reflect a clear continuation from the immediate lower levels
of Hacılar they become more and more distinct in nature from Ulucak IV-V types
especially because of the pronounced carination, animal shaped spouts, and pedestal
bases. Spouted small cup with one loop handle is a form never recorded at Ulucak IV-V.
Same goes for pedestal bases with windows. Moreover, tubular lugs become extinct with
these levels and there is a clear tendency of producing small handles than any type of
lugs that is clearly distinguished from Ulucak where tubular lugs, although in gradual
decrease, are nevertheless frequently encountered until the end of the settlement.
Level I pottery bears some similarities to previous Levels IV-III and Ulucak IV. In this
level red-on-cream wares make up 70% of all pottery. Monochrome wares are red and
cream-light brown burnished. White-on-red examples are also found in this level but are
quantitatively far below red-on-cream wares. Mellaart’s “fantastic style” disappeared
from the assemblage. Painted motifs are linear. White-on-red ware is unknown at
Ulucak, although few cream-on-red pieces have been found in IVi-k. Some major shapes
from Hacılar I have no parallels at Ulucak at all. Vessels with partitions, mouths with
rectangular-square shape, pedestals, tankard like cups with handles, squarish beakers-
276
mugs, carinated bowls with large diameters, stylized animal head handles, jars with
widening ovoid forms, pot stands, straight sided vases are not present at Ulucak at all.
What is however comparable to Ulucak is the presence of anthropomorphic vessels and
impressed wares (see above). The Hacılar I assemblage is related to Ulucak IV
assemblage in a way that one can say both assemblages have common origins but have
diverged through time. Hacılar I has many traits that are absent at Ulucak IVb-a that
makes us suggest that Hacılar I represents a further stage in pottery tradition that lacks at
Ulucak; and that despite the presence of anthropomorphic vessels at both sites. If Ulucak
was not abandoned with IVa maybe we were going to observe a similar direction in the
pottery shapes.
As a result, Ulucak V wares and forms show strong similarities to Hacılar IX-VI while a
gradual increase of RSBW observed at Ulucak V-IV is echoed in Hacılar VI-IV. What is
not echoed at Ulucak is the gradual increase of painted wares, although sporadic
appearances are attested in Ulucak V and IV. The linear execution of Ulucak painted
sherds can be compared to “Linear Style” of Level VI, prior to the appearance of the so-
called “fantastic style”. Existence of two anthropomorphic vessels from Ulucak IVb is
compared to Hacılar I specimens, but complete absence of Hacılar I forms at Ulucak IVb
indicates an earlier date for the latter.
Another important indication for dating is related to carinated vessels. At Hacılar,
pronounced carination is observed starting with Level V, but clear increase is observed
in Levels II-I. On the contrary, carination never becomes an identifiable feature of
Ulucak pottery, although the IVb forms show certain tendency towards carination.
Another important feature is the development of necks on jars. At Ulucak IVb, these are
encountered as fully developed and are found frequently. Jars with developed necks
occur already in Hacılar V and continue until Hacılar I. What is missing at Hacılar are
short necked jars with knobs or handles on neck. As such forms are found at Kuruçay
11Üst-7, we may allow us to correlate Ulucak examples with these, as such forms may
have appeared in the gap between Hacılar II and I. However, we should mention here
that at Ulucak horizontal lugs are never attested directly on rim, as some Kuruçay
examples. At Ulucak IVb, lugs always remain below the rim while small vertical handles
may be attached to rim. Nevertheless, matching of such jars at Kuruçay 11-7 is important
as these phases pre-date Hacılar I. Jars with small vertical handles on rims have also
been attested at Ilıpınar VII-VI, where Kuruçay-type jars with lugs on rim also appear. In
277
the light of carbon dates and these correlations one might suggest that Ilıpınar VII-VI
and Ulucak IV Late correspond to a similar chronological zone which falls into the gap
between Hacılar II and I.
Tubular lugs are extremely rare with Hacılar V onwards, but they continue until Hacılar
II, whereas tubular lugs are present in the Ulucak assemblage as long as the Level IV
habitation continues on the mound. It is true that their quantity decreases towards the end
of the occupation at Ulucak, but they remain to be used nevertheless.
Our comparisons and available carbon dates indicate that Ulucak IVb should be placed
to the gap between Hacılar II and I, together with Kuruçay 11-7. But, then, how can we
explain the occurrence of impressed wares and anthropomorphic vessels at Ulucak IVb
and Hacılar I? Is it possible that impressed wares at Ulucak which are found from Level
Va to IVa was a result of earlier interactions with communities in the Aegean and
Eastern Mediterranean, if we assume that they originated in the littoral Eastern
Mediterranean.
Another question would be how can we explain the absence of carinated bowls at
Ulucak? Carinated bowls seem to be one of the definitive forms of EC in the Lake
District and Central Anatolia, even in Northwest Anatolia. Many traits indicate
contemporaneity of Ulucak IV with Hacılar V-II, but how can be the carinated bowls
lacking at Ulucak? Can we explain it as a cultural resistance, similar to the non-adaption
of painted wares in the region? It is intriguing to try to explain the divergences in both
sites. Some of the answers however seem to be hidden in the Hacılar II-I gap. Others
have to do with differing ceramic traditions at both regions which through time diverged
from each other. Quasi-absence of painted wares at Ulucak IVb is a good proof of how
in different directions both regions had developed during the EC.
Another question is whether Ulucak Va-b pre-date Hacılar IX. It is unfortunate that in
Hacılar publication photos of ceramics from levels IX-VII are not included. From the
brief description of these early wares, we understand that similarities do indeed exist
with Ulucak V wares. Mellaart’s description of Hacılar IX-VIII pottery probably
corresponds to our “brown burnished ware” and “cream slipped burnished ware”. Light
grey and cream burnished fine wares constitute important portion of the wares in Ulucak
V. Nevertheless 37% of the Vb assemblage is constituted by RSBW (with stark contrast
to 83% of IVb). In the absence of precise ceramic data from Hacılar IX, it is hard to
278
make arguments on dating relying on the fabric but we have other evidence in hand to
guide us.
In terms of vessel shapes Ulucak Va-b is closely related to Hacılar IX, despite some
divergent features. For instance, basket-handles are absent at Ulucak Va-b and impressed
wares at Hacılar. Both traits therefore cannot be used for relative dating purposes. The
only feature that might help in relative dating is the oval shaped base. These are already
present at Hacılar IX but are not found at Ulucak earlier than building phase IVi. Hence,
if we are to use this morphological trait in our analysis, the situation suggests that
Ulucak IVk-Vb are pre-dating Hacılar IX.
In terms of other material cultural elements that might assist in dating architecture takes
precedence as in general in Anatolia mudbrick as building material is preceded by mud-
slab or wattle-and-daub (Düring 2006). Concerning the building technique used at
Hacılar IX-VII, Mellaart does not make any inferences. It seems like he considers them
to be of mud-brick because already in “Aceramic Hacılar” he excavated mudbrick
structures as well as in the subsequent level VI. Wattle-and-daub architecture excavated
at Ulucak Va and Vb are therefore crucial with regards to their earlier dating than
Hacılar IX. On the other hand, one should be careful when making correlations using
architectural techniques because it is known that a variety of techniques might be
employed at a single site and inter-regional comparisons of architectural development
may not work as one assumes. In other words, wattle-and-daub architecture is not
necessarily an indication of earlier date.
Figure 6.13: The only dated sample from Hacılar IX.
279
Yet another indication for Ulucak V being earlier than Hacılar IX can be further
supported by the fact that anthropomorphic figurines are not encountered with Ulucak
Vb whereas two fragments of figurines have been found at Hacılar IX (Mellaart 1970:
166).
In the light of these arguments it is conceivable to propose that “Ulucak V Culture” is
coinciding with and preceding Hacılar IX. Obviously they are strongly related to each
other. The carbon dates support our claim. Ulucak Vb covers a period from 6200-6100
cal. BCE which corresponds to Hacılar IX (Fig. 6.13). Ulucak Vc-f pottery,
characterized by dark colored burnished wares and hole-mouth pots, as suggested by the
carbon dates, is clearly earlier than Hacılar IX.
2. Kuruçay
2.1. General Overview of the Archaeological Research
The mound is located 15 km South of Burdur, and 1.5 km southwest of village Kuruçay.
The mound is 960 m above sea level, on a 10 m high small natural mound close to the
southeast of Lake Burdur. The mound itself is around 8 m high from ground level and is
90 m in diameter. To the north of the mound Bağ Deresi flows which is a seasonal water
system.
Already in 1964, J. Birmingham from Hacılar excavation team, collected material from
the mound. M. Özsait made survey in the area and collected material from the mound
between 1972-1975 as well. The mound has been excavated between 1978-1988 by
Refik Duru of Istanbul University. The final excavation report has been published in
1994 by Duru.
Stratigraphy and Periodization (Duru 1994)
EBA I-II Levels 1, 2 .......................Hiatus........................ Late Chalcolithic Levels 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6, 6A ........................Hiatus......................... Early Chalcolithic Levels 7-10 LN Level 11 EN Level 12 .......................Hiatus.......................... EN Level 13 Virgin Soil
280
The earliest level from Kuruçay, 13, is devoid of any architectural remains, identified in
two deep pits that were dug in two areas. Duru points out (1994: 9) these pit deposits
might be secondary but he is convinced that these are earlier than Level 12 as they are
found under elevations that revealed remains of Kuruçay 12. Kuruçay 12 is divided into
two sub-phases labeled as “12 alt” (12 Lower) and “12 üst” (12 Upper). A rectilinear
building (8.5 x 4.5 m on one side and 8.5 x 5.3 m on the other) with 1.1 m thick stone
foundations and pebble pavements (Building 1) and an adjacent building with curvilinear
walls (Building 2) to its East, are assigned to lower phase of Level 12. Inside Building 1,
around 40 grinding instruments, grinding stones and pestles, have been found. The
curvilinear building has a horse-shoe shaped oven and another hearth in it, again with a
number of grinding elements scattered on the floors, and apparently connected to the
first building. 12 üst contains another rectilinear building that is attached to the southern
side of first building, having a similar plan and stone foundations. Another wall which
resembles the stone foundations of the other structures have been excavated to the south
of Building 3. All three buildings and the stone foundations of this early are aligned at a
North-South direction and have attached walls.
Level 11, likewise divided into phases called “Alt” and “Üst” is characterized by an
enclosure wall of at least 26 m in length, whose foundations have a thickness between
1.1 to 1.2 m. On the wall two curvilinear towers, one of which contained a grave, can be
distinguished. Another wall that runs parallel to the enclosure wall with 4 meter distance
to the latter has been detected. No meaningful domestic architecture from this level has
been found.
EC levels follow Level 11 with four occupation Levels from 10-7. Few and damaged
stone foundations are assigned to Level 10. Two houses are assigned to Level 9, one of
which preserved relatively well. It is observed that the floor, made of compacted clay,
was renewed at least three times and housed one quern and one grinding stone. Level 8
includes damaged remains of five free-standing rectilinear houses that do not possess a
unified alignment.
Level 7 is reported to include better preserved architectural remains that belong to seven
quasi-square planned houses that have varying sizes. Houses are either attached to each
other or have narrow alleys in between. Remains of mudbrick from the superstructure
have been detected for the first time in this level. Houses are plastered and inner
281
buttresses, ranging from two to four, are evident which makes us recall the Hacılar I and
Can Hasan 2B houses.
It is seen that in general architectural remains from Kuruçay are confined to stone
foundations and from Levels 12-8 much spectacular changes in the building techniques
and house plans cannot be observed. Enclosure wall of Level 11 is of interest as it attests
a need for protection. What seems to have changed is also settlement layout, which in
level 8 shows free-standing and in Level 7 clustered buildings. Inner buttressing of the
walls is an innovation Level 7 which is serves as an important dating parameter for this
settlement as analogous plans and building techniques are known in several other
Anatolian settlements.
Very few carbon dates are available from Kuruçay. These were taken from Levels 13,12
and 11. Sample from Level 13 yielded a date 6230-6070 cal. BCE (7310±70 BP)
whereas Level 12 (7140±35 BP) and Level 11 (7045±95 BP) cluster around 6000-5800
cal. BCE (Duru 2007: 337). Two dates are available from Level 7, these gave the results
7214±38 BP and 5170±70 BP, the latter interpreted as an intrusion from upper levels
(Thissen 2002: 322).
2.2. Ceramics
Kuruçay 13-7 ceramic repertoire is classified into seven categories named by Duru as
“Ware A-F” and “coarse wares”. The wares are defined according to their fabrics and
surface treatments. At least on photos some distinct wares seem to be identical to us (See
Duru 1994: Lev. 246 and 247 for photos of different Kuruçay Wares). All are fine
tempered with mineral inclusions, but with varying surface treatments and surface
colors. Five of these wares are fine red-on-cream painted wares with mineral inclusions.
However it is likely that pastes and firing of these wares were distinct from each other
and therefore classified under different categories, which naturally cannot be inferred
through photos. Therefore we cling to the scheme developed by the excavator.
Ware A with its three sub-groups, is equal to what I call “RSBW”, “cream slipped
burnished wares” and “red-on-cream painted wares” which constitute in each building
level around 90% of the assemblage. The paste is very clean, even without temper, grey,
cream or brown colored. Mica is increasingly observed with Level 10. Chaff inclusions
are totally absent while some big sized vessels include mineral inclusions like grit. It is
noted that on some examples slip is easily detached from the surface, although on most
282
ceramics the slip well adheres to the body. The ceramics are very fine and burnished,
some very thin walled examples are mentioned from Levels 13-12. Sub-groups refer to
some coarser specimens, mottled surfaces, porous surfaces and darker fracture colors of
essentially the same ware (Duru 1994: 19).
Ware B is described as having red-brown paste with gray centers, mineral inclusions,
self-slip and occasionally burnished. Some of the examples are red-brown painted on
cream-yellowish surface. They generally have thick walls. They become increasingly
similar to Ware A (Duru 1994: 23).
Ware C makes up small portion of the Kuruçay ceramic assemblage having grey colored
pastes and mineral inclusions. Surfaces are porous and unslipped or self-slipped,
unburnished. Firing is poor and mottled surfaces are common (Duru 1994: 25)
Ware D is likewise quantitatively low in the assemblage (only 2%). Paste is gray to buff
(light brown). Mineral inclusions, small grits, are common. Neither slip nor burnishing is
attested. Vessels are thick-walled and well-fired.
Ware E, associated with Levels 10-9, has dark grey pastes without any trace of temper.
They are described as “porcelain-like” due to high firing temperatures. Surfaces are
slipped and burnished (Duru 1994: 26-27).
Ware F is peculiar to Level 7 with light grey- light brown pastes and mineral inclusions
such as sand, mica and small grits. Cream-light brown (“beige”) colored slip and
surfaces are common which are painted with red colored motifs. Surfaces are burnished
(Duru 1994: 28).
Duru mentions existence of “coarse wares” in every building phase from 13 to 7, which
he suggests as being “cooking wares” which are defined as gray-black colored, brown
pasted, unslipped and lightly burnished wares (Duru 1994: 29).
All the 150 pottery sherds that are uncovered from Level 13 belong to Ware A,
especially to categories A2 and A3 with dark colored pastes and mottled surfaces. A3
variant has also porous surfaces. Very few painted specimens confined to single bands,
dark brown paint on dark colored surface, have been found in the debris. Relief
decoration, one in the shape of a human with raised arms, is also present. Fineness of the
pottery is especially emphasized (Duru 1994: 31). The forms are mostly associated with
jars. Bowls with convex and flaring profiles, deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles,
283
beakers, hole-mouth jars, jars with short necks and jars with long necks (funnel necks)
are identified in the assemblage (Duru 1994: 20-21). Short-thick tubular lugs, horizontal
pierced knobs and vertical small handles are also seen. Presence of oval bases is worth
mentioning (Duru 1994: 30). Duru notes (1994: 9) that pottery from Level 13 (two pits)
are dissimilar to anything known from Kuruçay’ other levels, although, to our eyes, all
the wares and forms that are identified in this level continue and are perfectly matched in
later levels.
Level 12 with its Alt and Üst phases, has Wares A, B and C. In this level Ware A1, fine
RSBW and CSBW including painted specimens, becomes dominant. Wares B and C are
apparently in few numbers. Painted wars are already common and are confined to simple
bands, geometric shapes and fantastic motifs. Concentric “V” shapes, bucrania and stair
motifs recall Hacılar Fantastic style. Relief decoration, especially bucrania but also
human figures, is attested. Few bodysherds with incisions are also present. Common
forms include bowls with convex profiles, bowls with flaring profiles, bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles, beakers, vases, hole-mouth jars, hole-mouth jars with globular bodies
and short necks, oval mouthed jars with globular bodies, jars with necks and jars with
spouted rims (Duru 1994: 20-21). Animal shaped handles also appear with this level.
Short-thick tubular lugs are still observed as well as an increase in vertical or horizontal
handles. Especially horizontal handles placed right below the mouth on deep bowls and
jars in common.
Pottery from Level 11, both phases, include Wares A, B, D and E with Ware A again
being the predominant. The painted wares, red-on-cream, continue to increase in number
with a variety of motifs being applied from geometric to fantastic shapes. Ware B is
especially associated with red painted decorations. On bowls, inner side of the vessel
carries concentric circles. Lugs that are placed inside of a vessel, associated with coarse
Ware D, is observed for the first time in this level. Many of the forms from the previous
levels continue while carinated bowls become visible in the assemblage. Circular
horizontal lugs right on rim of hole-mouth jars are seen in this phase (Duru 1994: Lev.
95).
Ceramic assemblages of Levels 10-8 are by and large identical to each other. Ware A
still dominating, other Wares such as B, C, D and E appearing in small numbers. Painted
wares continue in big numbers while there seems to be an increase in the number of
vessels with fantastic designs. One important change is the decrease in the number of
284
tubular lugs and appearance of ring bases and pedestals with windows. One interesting
fact is appearance of a lentoid vessel, known from Hacılar IX-VI and III. Small cups
with or without handles are also common. Oval forms continue. Shallow plates become
more common. Typical are also jars with horizontal handles on the rims. Ovoid jar
mouths are again attested in Level 8. Footed vessels are also observed in the same level.
Level 7 witnesses some innovations in the ceramic fabrics and forms. Ware F appears in
this level. Red-on-cream wares continue but with limited variety of designs. Forms that
are known from previous Levels 10-8 continue into the Level 7. Small cups, spouted
cups and deep vases seem to have appeared in this level. Jars with ovoid mouths, lentoid
jars, small sized hole-mouth bowls are absent in this level.
2.3. Relative Dating of Kuruçay
The relative chronology of Lake District has already been presented in detail by Schoop
(2005a: 172-191) who was able to solve a number of problems related to the relative and
absolute chronology of this region through his methodologically sound, objective
research-historical and relative chronological analysis. In this section, we will restrict
ourselves to ceramic comparisons, wares and forms, between Hacılar and Kuruçay
without going into the details of historical background of chronological
misinterpretations.
A short summary to explain why we write this section would suffice here: For several
reasons, Duru sets Kuruçay 13 contemporary with “Aceramic Hacılar” and Çatalhöyük
12; and provides a date around 7000-6800 cal BCE for this horizon (see Duru 1989;
Duru 1994: 51; Duru 1999: 189; for a detailed critique see Schoop 2002). He also makes
clear distinctions between Kuruçay 13 and 12 (his “EN”) by separating them from each
other by roughly 400 years; Level 11 and 10-8 by calling the former “Late Neolithic”
and the latter as “Early Chalcolithic”. As a result, the clear continuity and gradual
development of Kuruçay ceramic assemblage in its entirety falls victim to this
terminological choice. This ongoing arbitrary use of chronological terms such as “Early
Neolithic”, “Late Neolithic” and “Early Chalcolithic” impedes healthy constructions of
relative chronology in this region. Why Levels 13-12 are labeled as “EN”, Level 11 as
“LN” and Level 10 as “EC” is a question that is left unanswered. Finally, a fundamental
misinterpretation of absolute dates from the region pursued Duru to build unjustifiable
relative chronologies (Schoop 2002). As a result, I find it useful here to present an
account of to what extent Hacılar IX-I and Kuruçay 13-7 assemblages are analogous.
285
One can easily state that there are fundamental similarities between the entire Hacılar
and Kuruçay ceramic assemblages even without making detailed comparisons. Duru
(1994: 53) actually makes this point by stating that the ceramics from both settlements
might have been produced at the same workshops. The dominance of RSBW and CSBW
from the earliest levels of Kuruçay, presence of oval bases, short tubular lugs, painted
pieces, hole-mouth jars with globular bodies and bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles point out
that even Kuruçay 13 fits well into the “LN” ceramic assemblages of Hacılar IX-VI.
Absence of long tubular lugs set in pairs, a trait for rather early phases, and presence of
red-on-cream vessels already at Kuruçay 13 might even indicate a later date for this
settlement than Hacılar IX-VI. There is however one example from Kuruçay 12 Alt
which shows two pierced knobs set in pairs which we should indicate here as an “early-
looking piece”. On the other hand, the forms and wares are defining types (Leitformen)
of what in Central and West Anatolian terms “LN”.
A2 and A3 variations of Ware A, as depicted on Duru (1994: Lev. 246), might be equal
to what Mellaart defined as “monochrome wares” with mineral inclusions and surface
colors that are predominantly grey, light brown and cream. In my opinion, such
differences in surface colors, fracture and surface properties (for example mottling) do
not necessarily indicate separate “wares” but an outcome of undeveloped firing methods
and especially of open-firing used commonly in the Neolithic. Therefore, it is rather
questionable whether we are dealing with “different wares” or same wares which went
through different firing processes. In any case, presence of fine pottery with various
surface colors (Wares A2 and A3) is not only encountered at Level 13, but also in Levels
12-7, which indicates that these “wares” were not time-specific but are present in all
Levels from 13 to 7.
The continuity in the fabrics and forms from 13 to 12 and into 11-8 and 7 is nothing but
obvious. Increasing fineness of RSBW and red-on-cream is observed at Hacılar in the
Levels from IX to VI and especially gradual but steady increase of painted wares with
Level VI-IV. A similar story seems to repeat itself at Kuruçay where this increase is
noted by Duru from level 13 into 12 and 11. Therefore an earlier date for Kuruçay 12-11
than Hacılar IX-VI, as suggested by Duru (1999: 189) remains unjustified. There are a
number of crucial traits between Kuruçay 13-7 and Hacılar VI-I, to suggest that these
settlements were not contemporarily settled would be perverse. The first and most
important are the near- absence of coarse wares, dominance of RSBW and an ever
286
increasing number of cream-on-red painted wares with identical motifs from both
mounds. Let’s recall Duru’s (1994: 19) statement: “Ware A makes 90% of the
assemblage in all phases.” Secondly, the identical forms from both settlements from
their earliest phases make it clear that we are dealing with partly or completely
contemporary settlements.
There are other distinctive traits that helps develop the argument of contemporaneity on
a more detailed level. Such traits include ovoid jar mouths, lentoid jars, horn handles,
identical motifs of paint (especially Mellaart’s “fantastic style”), bucranium shaped lugs,
relief decoration, lugs attached to the inside of vessels, pedestals with windows, footed
vessels, and horizontal lugs on rims. For instance, it is impossible to overlook the
execution of concentric “V” design on a red-on-cream Kuruçay 13 bowl with ‘s’-shaped
profile and the same design on an identical
form from Hacılar V (Fig. 6.14). Another
striking similarity is observed between the
three jars painted with thick vertical bands (see
Duru 1994: Lev. 35: 9; Lev. 39; 1 and Lev.
98:2) which were found in Levels 13, 12 Alt
and 11 Üst59 respectively. The same jar is
well-known from Hacılar VI, likewise painted
with thick vertical bands in red (Fig. 6.14). An
identical jar form, with short neck, two vertical
small handles on belly and flat base, is also
illustrated on Mellaart 1970: Pl. 75 for vessel
shapes from Hacılar IIA. It is obvious that this
vessel form continues at Hacılar from VI- IIA.
The paint, vertical thick bands, is very well
attested at Hacılar VI, on more than one jar. These direct comparisons indicate clearly
that Kuruçay 13-11 are representing successive stages without any cultural hiatus.
According to our understanding these levels should be contemporary with Hacılar VI-V
and cannot be earlier than that.
59 This vessel was attributed to Level 11 Üst in the original publication from 1994; to Level 12 in Duru 1999: Fig. 9 and again to level 11 in Duru 2007: Fig. 22. We take here the designation in the 1994 publication as correct and assign the vessel to Level 11 Üst.
Figure 6.14: 1. Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 59.1) 2. Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 59.14) 3. Kuruçay 11 Üst (after Duru 1994: Lev. 74.1) 4. Kuruçay 13 (after Duru 1999: Fig. 9) 5. Hacılar V (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 62.1) 6. Hacılar V (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 62.2) 7. Kuruçay 12 Alt (after Duru 1994:Lev. 40.3) 8. Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 56.3)
287
Decrease of tubular lugs for example another development that runs parallel at both
settlements. At Hacılar with level V and at Kuruçay with Level 11, a decrease in the
number of tubular lugs is mentioned. At Hacılar IV and Kuruçay 10 there are no vertical
tubular lugs anymore. Similarly, an increasing carination on bowls is observed at Hacılar
VI-V and Kuruçay 11 which continue into later levels at both levels. Fantastic style is
first observed at Hacılar V and “fantastic shapes” at Kuruçay is attested already with
Level 12-11, increasing in Levels 11-8. Large shallow plates are a very well defined
characteristic of Hacılar I while they seem to appear at Kuruçay already at Levels 11-9
as well as Level 7.
Painted wares from Kuruçay 11 find their strong parallels at Hacılar IV. Pedestals are
first observed at Hacılar VI, then in subsequent levels until Level II, while they are seen
at Kuruçay in Levels 10-8 and 7. The horizontal lugs that are placed on rim seen mostly
on hole-mouth jars are known from Hacılar I and Kuruçay 11-7. Theriomorphic vessels
of Hacılar VI and IV are found at Kuruçay 11. Offering tables are only known from
“Early Chalcolithic” levels of Kuruçay while they appear at Hacılar between Levels V-
IIB, likewise called “Early Chalcolithic”. Bead-rims, anti-splash rims and grooved rims,
appearing at Hacılar VI-IV, are not mentioned in the Kuruçay report. Disappearance of
“fantastic style” in Kuruçay 7 and Hacılar I can be likewise treated as chronological
signs. Especially when one thinks that squarish mudbrick architecture with inner
buttresses appear with Kuruçay 7 and matched only at Hacılar II-I. These point out that
Kuruçay Levels 11-7 are in strong correlation with Hacılar V-I. Probably Kuruçay 11 is
rather contemporary with Hacılar V-IV. As mentioned by Schoop (2005a: 180) the
appearance of carinated bowls with concentric lozenges, concentric circles, hatched and
linear patterns, at Kuruçay in Levels 10-9 and its continuation into Level 7, provide us a
correlation between Kuruçay 10-7 and Hacılar I.
Many similar developments at Kuruçay 7 and Hacılar I make us think that these
settlements were chronologically close. What is interesting is that the wide variety of
forms, some big sized jar forms with exaggerated widening bodies and carinations on
belly accompanied by small handles, square shaped mugs and beakers and
anthropomorphic vessels are never seen at Kuruçay. Incision, seen only at Hacılar I, is
attested at Kuruçay 12 and 7. Schoop (2005a: 193) envisages Kuruçay 11-7 as a natural
continuation of Hacılar IX-V tradition in the “Early Chalcolithic”, but slightly before
Hacılar I. This seems to be the optimal solution for the data provided by the both sites. In
288
any case, Hacılar I is chronologically one step further than Kuruçay 7 when it comes to
form variability.
All these traits, their absence and presence, are important signifiers for a relative
chronology that can be established between these two neighboring settlements. In the
light of comparisons it seems possible to suggest that Kuruçay 13-8 is roughly
contemporary with Hacılar VI-II while Kuruçay 7 can be slightly earlier than Hacılar I.
In other words, Kuruçay’s first settlement is later than Hacılar IX-VII and Kuruçay’s
latest “Early Chalcolithic” settlement is earlier than Hacılar I. These indicate a shorter
time-span of inhabitation at Kuruçay compared to Hacılar.
3. Bademağacı
3.1. General Overview of the Archaeological Research
The mound is 2.5 km northeast of town Bademağacı, which is located 50 km north of
city Antalya. The mound is situated on a small plain surrounded by Taurus Mountains, to
the south of the actual Lake District in an area separated from Northern settlements like
Hacılar and Kuruçay. Its altitude is 780 m above sea level. The mound is located few
kilometers North of Çubuk Beli, a natural pass that links the inner plateau with the
littoral plain (Duru 1996: 784). The cultural remains go under the current level of the
plain.
The mound was discovered in 1958 by David French. It has been mentioned by Mellaart
as “Kızılkaya” in his publications (Mellaart 1961b). According to Duru (1996), the site
should be called “Bademağacı.” The excavations at the mound started in 1993 by Refik
Duru of İstanbul University, and still continue under the direction of Refik Duru and
Gülsün Umurtak from the same institution.
The most recent periodization provided by the current excavators is as follows (Duru
2007):
Late Roman-Byzantine Church ………………….Hiatus……………………. MBA Sub-phases 1-2 EBA II Sub-phases 1-3 ..............................Hiatus......................... Late Chalcolithic (?) ..............................Hiatus......................... Early Chalcolithic (?) LN Sub-phases 1-2
289
..............................Hiatus......................... EN II 7 sub-phases (1-3,3A,4,4A,4B) EN I 5 sub-phases (5,6,7,8,9) Virgin soil The EN accumulations from the site reach 6 m height. The earliest archaeological
material collected from two deep sondages that are stratigraphically unconnected was
designated as the earliest cultural deposit ENI-9 (see plan on Duru 2007: Fig. 54). First
true architecture comes from ENI-8 which yielded a so-called “terrazzo” floor, floor
made of hardened lime tempered with sand, which covers an area of 2 x 2 m. Duru
(2007: 344) notes that red and black residues on the floor might indicate that it was
originally painted. Additional architectural remains related to this floor are not present.
The sub-phases ENI- 7-5 are composed of thin burnt floor deposits identified in sections
without any positive architectural elements attributed to them (Duru 2007).
Earliest houses from the settlement are known from sub-phases ENII 4B, 4 and 4A
which revealed relatively small sized rectilinear mudbrick structures which included flat
topped ovens that are built to the longer wall that faces the door opening. Eight
additional buildings are uncovered from the upper phase, ENII-3. These are mainly free-
standing one roomed rectilinear buildings with sizes around 5 x 3.5 m to 6 x 4 m. Stone
foundations do not exist. The corners of the houses are rounded and floors plastered.
Mud was the main building material while wood was used at least to support roofs and
lay out thresholds. From the descriptions it is clear that in addition to plano-convex
bricks, mud-slabs were also used in the wall constructions (Umurtak 2000: 684). In this
phase, there is one house with two rooms in which eight human skeletons were
excavated. (Duru 2007: 344-345). Three of the houses (Houses 2, 3 and 4) share walls
having their doors facing the same direction towards on open area which contained a
mud storage unit with six compartments (Duru 2007: Fig. 54). There are scattered stone
rows and foundations found in different parts of the mound that are attributed to this
phase.
The following phases ENII-2-1 are defined with few rectangular mudbrick structures and
walls. One of these structures contained wall plaster with red paint in triangles (Duru
2007: Figs. 60-61). In 2006, more architectural remains, especially storage units, from
this phase have been excavated (Duru and Umurtak 2007: 7).
LN remains, two houses and various walls, from Bademağacı are unearthed on the
eastern slope of the mound. The houses are rectilinear mudbrick with 80-90 cm thick
290
stone foundations. The corners are not rounded anymore, probably indicating use of real
mould-made mud-bricks.
Among typical material culture from the site clay stamps, female figurines, bone spatula
and sling missiles can be named (Duru 2007: Figs. 67-82; Umurtak 1999-2000: Res. 3)
Eight carbon dates are available from the EN deposits. The earliest of these was obtained
from sub-phase ENI-8 and provided a range between 7035-6705 cal. BCE (7949±31
BP). Six dates are available from EN3-4 phases which cluster around 6440-6210 cal
BCE. EN1 revealed one date which falls between 6220-6080 cal. BCE (at 1 σ) (Duru
2007: 349). These figures indicate that ENI-II periods at the site cover ca. 900-1000
years from 7000 to 6000 BCE.
3.2. Ceramics The excavations at the site showed that even the first settlers who founded their settled
on the virgin soil produced pottery. Ceramics from ENI-9, collected from two small
sized pits, are low in quantity and small in size. It is not possible to establish connections
from such a small sample size without any distinctive forms. Scarcity of pottery,
however, is meaningful, especially when one considers the possible age of this deposit.
Bademağacı ENI-9-8 might well correspond to the initial production stage of pottery in
the region.
Pottery for the entire ENI is fairly homogenous. Paste is mica tempered, moderately
fired, self-slipped, grey, brown, light brown, cream colored and lightly burnished. Paste
color may range from pink, light brown, cream to dark gray (Duru 2007: 347). Shapes
are limited to small-medium sized bowls with convex profiles, deep bowls and hole-
mouth jars. Rims are simple, slightly everted or inverted. Flattened rims are observed
with ENI-5. One carinated bowl with an inverted profile that is illustrated by Duru
(2007: Fig. 64b) is worth mentioning. Bases are flat while few vertically placed pierced
lugs are encountered.
ENII pottery assemblage is a continuation of the previous phase with change observed
on surface colors that include among light colors like light brown, cream, light grey also
increasingly red, dark gray and brown. A photo of ceramics from this phase in Duru
2007: Fig. 66a clearly shows that light colors are still dominating in the assemblage. Red
slip, not well adhering to the body, is also clearly in trend. Hole-mouth jars, large bowls
with ‘s’-shaped profiles, simple bowls with convex profiles, thick-short tubular lugs,
291
pierced knobs, anti-splash rims and flat as well as disc bases are important characteristics
of this phase. Tubular lugs set in pairs are commonly found. Lentoid vessels with tubular
lugs and oval shaped mouths are also in the assemblage. In some cases lids or lid
grooves on rims have been preserved. One rectangular shaped vessel, called as “box”,
has been found in ENII-3 phase (Duru 1999: 181). One basket handled deep bowl with
convex profile found right next to the mud silo with six compartments (Duru 1997: 721)
is also of interest in terms of dating. Relief decoration in the shape of bucranium is
observed on a jar with short neck. Paint on some vessels has been attested (Duru 2003:
559), one of which showed linear vertical bands that run from rim towards base. One big
sized storage jar is uncovered from ENII-1 (Duru 2003: 559).
Concerning the pottery from LN-EC strata, information is available in the preliminary
report from 1996, which are described as cream-on-red or white-on-red painted.
Carinated bowls with linear paintings of both sides and jars with funnel necks are seen
on Plates 9 and 14 (Duru 1996). Female figurines from the same deposits were also
recovered. Duru (1999: 181) mentions finding few sherds that were white-on-red painted
stemming from an area where they found parallel stone foundations mentioned above.
These sherds he tends to date to LN-EC.
Last but not least, one impressed bodysherd is illustrated on Duru 1996: Levha 14 but
without contextual information.
3.3. Relative Dating of Bademağacı
Duru tends to date the earliest remains from Bademağacı to 7000 cal BCE based on one
carbon date (7949±31) obtained from charred wood. This, he sets contemporary with
Kuruçay 13, Höyücek ESP and Hacılar “Aceramic”; even before Çatalhöyük 12 (see the
chart in Duru 1999: 189). Duru (1999: 187) asserts that “…evidence among the finds
suggests that the oldest levels at Çatalhöyük are as old as, or slightly older than, the
earlier settlements at Bademağacı, Höyücek, Hacılar and Kuruçay.” For the following
ENII phase, Duru (1999: 727) suggests contemporaneity between Bademağacı ENII-3
and Çatalhöyük VI. According to the carbon data, Çatalhöyük VI is dated to around
6600 cal. BCE whereas Bademağacı ENII-3 to 6400-6200 cal. BCE (see Thissen 2002:
326; 334). Obviously carbon dates are indicating a LN age for Bademağacı’s ENII
levels. Below we will argue that Bademağacı ENI-ENII is closely related to Hacılar LN
(especially IX-VIII) while ENI 9-6 at Bademağacı probably predate Hacılar sequence.
Bademağacı “LN-EC” deposits are clearly EC in age.
292
The early monochrome pottery from the site, the so-called “ENI” is a fine-medium ware
with a variety of surface colors which is clearly an outcome of the open firing technique.
The cream-light brown color however is definitely predominating. This description
makes us recall the Hacılar IX-VIII pottery as described by Mellaart (1970: 9): “pottery
which is mainly cream or light grey in color.”
However one needs to compare the forms in order to obtain a firm ground. The forms
that are from ENI 9-5 include bowls with convex profiles with simple rims which are
known from Hacılar IX-VIII (see Mellaart 1970. Pl. 45: 1,7,5,6; Pl. 48: 13,14 and 18).
At least one bowl with ‘s’-shaped profile is depicted on Duru 2007: Fig. 64b which finds
good parallels at Hacılar IX-VI in general. Shallow plates and bowls with incurving or
outcurving rims are rather a feature of Hacılar VI (see Mellaart 1970: Pl. 50: 11-18). The
carinated bowl seen again on Duru 2007: Fig. 64b finds its best parallel in Hacılar V (see
Mellaart 1970: pl. 60:1). Hole-mouth jar with pierced knobs is likewise attested at
Hacılar IX (see Mellaart 1970: Pl. 46.11). What is however missing at Bademağacı’s
ENI repertoire is the vertical tubular lug, a trait very well known from Hacılar IX-VI.
This may be an indication of a period when tubular lugs have not appeared yet. Presence
of flattened (inner thickened) rims from Bademağacı ENI is unmatched at Hacılar.
Interestingly, such rims are typical of Central-West Anatolia attested well at Ulucak IV
and Dedecik-Heybelitepe. Anti-splash rims that are observed at EN levels of
Bademağacı is a trait of Hacılar VI. The bowl with basket handle from Bademağacı EN
finds its twin at Hacılar IX (Fig. 6.15). It remains however unclear from the limited
information provided on ENI-9 pottery to what extent Hacılar IX and basal Bademağacı
differ from each other. Despite certain morphological similarities, the pottery from
Bademağacı ENI seems coarser, clumsily made, therefore, technologically inferior to
Hacılar IX. Here we have to rely on the carbon date from ENI-8, which suggests that
basal Bademağacı might be 400-700 years earlier than Hacılar IX.
The variety of forms from Bademağacı EN I belong to various stages as is the case from
the excavation which virtually lacks any architectural deposit except the terrazzo floor
from layer ENI-8. Pottery with light surface colors and burnishing is definitely found at
Hacılar IX. Early pottery from Çatalhöyük is likewise light colored (cream-grey) but
Çatalhöyük XII-IX pottery is porous, 1-2 cm thick and straw tempered. These features
are not found at Bademeağacı and may point to different traditions and technologies, if
not different time periods. It seems likely that the earliest accumulations from
293
Bademağacı precede Hacılar IX as ‘s’-shaped profiles appear slightly later at
Bademağacı whereas they are already present at Hacılar with the earliest phase. The
absence of tubular lugs but presence of pierced knobs from Bademağacı ENI is likewise
intriguing and might indicate an early stage without tubular lugs. More data needs to be
published from these phases but for the time being it can be argued that Bademağacı ENI
9-6 is earlier than Hacılar IX.
Bademağacı EN II 4-1 assemblage
includes forms that are already known
from the earlier levels but there are
some new elements in the assemblage
too. These levels are dated more safely
through seven carbon dates which
nicely cluster roughly between 6400-
6000 cal. BCE (see Duru 2007: 349).
Tubular lugs, painted decoration,
lentoid vessels, oval mouths, anti-
splash rims, relief decoration, and disc
bases are new ceramic traits in this
level. Bowls and jars with tubular lugs
or pierced knobs are abundantly
available from Hacılar IX-VI. The earliest example of a lentoid jar comes from Hacılar
VII. This form continues into level VI and even into Hacılar III. Oval shaped mouths are
first attested with Hacılar VI (see Mellaart 1970: Pl. 51.13). Anti-splash rims are
likewise attested first at Hacılar VI. Relief decoration in the shape of a bucranium is
again found at Hacılar VI (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 56.1,56.3) as well as at Kuruçay 12 Alt
(Duru 1994: Lev. 40.3). Finally, the paint seen on some Bademağacı sherds, thin or thick
vertical lines that run from mouth towards the body are not foreign to Hacılar IX-VI.
Very similar painted motifs are seen on a number of vessels from Hacılar IX (see
Mellaart 1970: Pl. 47). Vertical thick bands are also well known from Hacılar VIII, VII
and VI which Mellaart called “linear style”. As a result, Bademağacı EN II carries the
strongest links with Hacılar IX-VI. Most apparent matches are seen however with
Hacılar VI. Therefore, it would not be far-fetched to state that Bademağacı ENII is
contemporary with Hacılar VI.
Figure 6.15: 1. Hacılar IX (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 47.39) 2. Bademağacı EN (after Duru 1999: Fig. 37) 3. Bademağacı EN II (after Duru 2007: Fig. 65) 4. Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 56.2)
294
There are additional material cultural elements from Bademağacı EN that supports the
above dating proposal. These are architectural tradition, stamp seals, female figurines,
marble bowls, bone spatula, bone “belt hooks” and obsidian arrowheads. The houses
from ENII-3, as already discussed in detail by Umurtak (2000), with their shapes, sizes,
building material and inner arrangement are highly similar to Hacılar VI houses. The
mud square storage units and flat topped ovens are likewise very well-known from
Hacılar VI (see plan Mellaart 1970: Fig. 7). The figurines found in EN debris are also
indicative in terms of dating, because figurines make their first appearances at
Çatalhöyük only with Level VI and are never found in EN levels of Çatalhöyük
(Çilingiroğlu 2005). Figurines with wooden peg heads, as described by Duru for EN
specimens (1997: 722), are again a typical trait of Hacılar VI (Mellaart 1970: 167). The
stamp seal with concentric circles from Bademağacı ENII-3 has many parallels,
including Ulucak IVb, in LN-EC of Anatolia and Early-Middle Neolithic of mainland
Greece and Bulgaria as demonstrated by Lichter (2005: Figs. 3-4). Duru notes the
similarity between Bademağacı and Çatalhöyük stamps which he uses to justify his
suggestions for an early date of Bademağacı EN levels (Duru 2001: 590).
The obsidian arrowhead from Bademağacı EN (Duru 1999: Fig. 40) is perfectly matched
with the specimens excavated from Tepecik-Çiftlik Level 3 (see Bıçakçı et al. 2007: Fig.
29) which is dated to the EC period. The remaining material cultural finds from
Bademağacı EN find their parallels in many Anatolian Neolithic settlements and these
are rather hard to date precisely as they appear from PPN into PN. Clear parallels are
again available at Hacılar VI-I. In short, Bademağacı ENII architecture and material
culture is well matched from LN and EC levels of many Anatolian sites.
The “LN-EC” pottery from Bademağacı with its red-on-cream painted designs on
carinated bowls with small knobs on carination and the jars with funnel necks are easily
comparable to Hacılar I and Kuruçay 10-7 pottery assemblages. Presence of white-on-
red wares is likewise matched at Hacılar I. Absence of “fantastic style” is another
indication for a date that is closer to Hacılar I. Therefore, there is no doubt as to whether
this horizon represents LN or EC. It is a very clear EC assemblage.
From our account it becomes clear that what Duru calls EN II is actually Mellaart’s LN.
And what Duru calls “LN-EC” is without doubt EC. The difference that is observed
between the pottery from Bademağacı ENI-II and Hacılar IX-VI is not necessarily their
dates but their quality. This is exactly why Mellaart dated Bademağacı (then Kızılkaya)
295
to EN during his 1958 survey, although he recognized clear similarities to Hacılar IX-VI
(Mellaart 1961b). Duru (1996: 795), as he states in his first preliminary report, adapted
Mellaart’s dating.
Finally, Bademağacı’s earliest levels (ENI-9-5) probably predate Hacılar IX but more
data and carbon dates are needed to define this early stage at Bademağacı which is
extremely important to reconstruct the neolithization process in this region and in West
Anatolia in general.
4. Höyücek
4.1. General Overview of the Archaeological Research
Höyücek is located 4 km to the East of town Bucak, on a small plain (870 m above sea
level) in the southern portion of Lake District, 30 km south of city Burdur on the road to
Antalya which passes Taurus Mountains through a natural pass. To the northwest of the
site is located Lake Kestel. The mound reaches a height of 4 m over the plain while
around 2-2.5 m remain submerged under the plain’s ground level. The excavations at the
site have taken place between years 1989-1992 in four excavation seasons by Refik Duru
and Gülsün Umurtak of Istanbul University (Duru and Umurtak 2005: 1-3).
According to the excavators the mound included occupations that were not built of
domestic buildings but of cult buildings (“shrines” and “temples”). The periodization of
the excavated levels follows this interpretation (Duru and Umurtak 2005: 5):
The mixed accumulation EC and post-EC ……………Hiatus…………. “The Sanctuaries Phase” LN ……………Hiatus…………. “The Shrine Phase” EN II ……………Hiatus…………. “The Early Settlements Phase” EN I Virgin Soil No architectural remains have been identified from “Early Settlements Phase” (ESP)
which is comprised of 35m2 area in a deep sounding excavated in order to reach the
virgin soil. Several burnt and ashy layers have been detected during excavations. The
excavators divided this 4 meter accumulation into more or less arbitrary three phases.
The youngest phase (ESP 1) comprises the first 1.7 m from the mound’s surface; ESP 2
the following 1.73 m and finally the 1.57 m the oldest accumulation on the mound is
296
called ESP 3. It is suggested that wattle-and-daub building technique was used for the
houses from this early stage due to lack of any identifiable architectural structure (Duru
and Umurtak 2005: 6-7).
The “Shrine Phase” with two sub-phases, the earlier not preserved, includes five
rectilinear mudbrick buildings that were built in an alignment adjacent to each other
(Fig. 6.16). The houses are constructed of plano-convex bricks which form walls that
may reach to 1m. The walls and floors are mostly plastered (Duru and Umurtak 2005: 8).
Preservation state varies from one building to the other. Buildings 3 housed a flat-topped
oven, storage units and niches on the walls. The oven is situated on the long wall that
faces the door opening, a well-known feature of Hacılar VI and Bademağacı ENII-3
(Umurtak 2000; Umurtak 2005). Building 4, with a size of 8 x 5 m, has two main
divisions. The southern division houses mud silos and boxes that are apparently used for
storage purposes. The northern section has an additional storage area divided from the
main room by a wall. Adjacent to this wall was a staircase with six steps. Inside the cell-
like area, variety of finds was uncovered. These include deer horns, cattle mandibles and
knuckle-bones as well as marble bowls and various pottery vessels in the niches inside of
this area.60 In front of the staircase was a large marble bowl. Behind the staircase, buried
under the floor were “thousands of flint blades” were recovered. According to Duru and
Umurtak (2005: 10), Building 3 with the oven is a temple while building 4 is its
“Adyton” (the most sacred part). Building 5 (11.5 x 8.5 m) is another mudbrick building
60 Such niches, found in Hacılar VI houses, are called by Mellaart as “peepholes” (see Mellaart 1970: Fig. XIV).
Figure 6.16: Plan of the Shrine Phase at Höyücek (after Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pl. 5)
297
adjacent to Buildings 3 and 4 on the same axis. The excavators interpret this as the house
of the priests.
The following occupation, the so-called “Sanctuaries Phase”, at the site is said to follow
a hiatus. Architectural remains are confined to five plastered mudbrick wall segments
(0.35-0.45 m in thickness) and some plastered areas which revealed concentrations of
around 100 human figurines, idols and polished axes. Three cult areas have been defined
from this occupational phase due to the presence of high number of finds, mainly of
figurines (Duru and Umurtak 2005: 19-22).
The mixed debris contained material from prehistoric to modern periods.
The lithic industry is clearly dominated by pressure flaked blade-based production on
site using both local flint sources and Central Anatolian obsidian throughout the entire
sequence (Balkan-Atlı 2005: 136). Although extremely rare, pressure-flaked projectile
points have been also encountered in the assemblage which are construed as “foreign” to
the region. Balkan-Atlı indicates that the obsidian has been brought to the site as pre-
forms but knapped in the same way as the flint (Balkan-Atlı 2005: 135).
Three carbon dates from the Shrine Phase fall between 6400-6200 cal. BCE (7556±45,
7551±46 and 7349±38 BP). Only one date is available from ESP2 (7393±38 BP) and it
gives the range 6360-6220 cal. BCE (at 1 σ) (Duru 2007: 342).
4.2. Ceramics
The pottery collected from the deep sondage is homogenous in character, being
monochrome with colors that range from grey to tone of brown, slipped and burnished.
Pottery from the earliest stage (Ware1) is confined to mineral tempered, self-slipped,
moderately fired and dark colored (black, dark gray, gray) examples.
In the following stage, ESP 2, Ware 1 is accompanied by Wares 2 and 3, which are
likewise mineral tempered. Ware 2 is characterized by large non-plastic inclusions and
light gray, pale brown self-slipped surfaces while Ware 3 is basically a mineral
tempered, red slipped and burnished fine ware. The surfaces are commonly mottled and
sooted. The pottery is fine, having thin-middle thick walls.
In ESP 3, Wares 1, 2 and 3 are still present however a decline in Ware 1 is observed
(Duru and Umurtak 2005: 28-29). It is seen that RSBW and tubular lugs are already
present in this early deposit from ESP 2 onwards. Forms are restricted to simple shallow
298
bowls, open shapes with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with convex profiles, hole-mouth jars
and straight sided jars (Duru and Umurtak 2005: Fig. 6). Jars with vertical necks are also
present in the latest ESP phase. One of them has brown colored paint made in horizontal
parallel lines on the neck (Duru 2002: Pl. 4). Rims are simple or slightly everted. Bases
are flat, disc or ringed. Oval bases are observed too (Duru 2002: Pls. 3-4; Duru and
Umurtak 2005: Pls. 33-43).
In the following phase, pottery is said to be much more developed. The paste is grey-
brown and clean. The surface colors are mainly red, reddish brown and orange-brown.
Duru (2007: 340) states that non-plastic inclusions (temper) were not found in the paste.
The firing is so good that Duru is convinced of the use of pottery kilns for the
production. In addition to the Wares 1,2 and 3 from the previous phases, Ware 4 is also
encountered in the “Shrine Phase”. Ware 4 is described as mineral tempered, self-
slipped, well-fired and burnished with surfaces that have brown, dark reddish-brown
hues (Duru and Umurtak 2005: 29). Bowls and deep bowls and jars with ‘s’-shaped
profiles are the predominant in the ceramic morphology. Straight sided jars with two
vertical handles as well as anti-splash rims are likewise observed. Slight carination is
observed on several deep bowl types such as “Ça/E2” and “Ça/E5”. Lentoid vessels, jars
with necks and basket handles are likewise found in the ceramic assemblage from Shrine
Phase. Vessels with “fantastic shapes” such as “boot shaped” or “kidney-shaped” vessels
are recovered. Tubular lugs are observed on the vessels frequently. Plastic and incised
decorations are seen on few sherds. Animal shaped handles are also encountered in the
assemblage (Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pls. 44-64).
Pottery of the next occupation, “Sanctuaries Phase”, is reported to be of less quality. In
this level, Ware 1 is completely disappeared. Ware 2, 3, 5 and 6 comprise the whole
assemblage. Ware 5 is mineral tempered with extensive burnishing marks on the surface
which is mainly brown, dark red or reddish brown. Characteristic for this ware is clay
lumps sometimes applied to the surface or the rim. Ware 6 is basically fine burnished
wares with occasional cream or whitish paint. White-on-red painted ware is also found in
this level. Vessels with pronounced ‘s’-shaped profiles are still dominating the
assemblage. There is a clear tendency towards carination in this level and tubular lugs
have disappeared. Bowls with oval mouths and spouts are also observed. Pedestals with
windows are another characteristic of this phase.
299
Finally the mixed accumulation contained a variety of wares which is dominated by red-
on-cream and cream-on-red painted examples. Impressed pottery (Ware 9) is also
present, although in smaller numbers (1-2%) compared to the painted wares. Paint is
mostly executed in linear designs, sometimes on both sides. Carinated bowls, plates and
necked jars are prevalent. Bowls with lugs inside and relief decorated sherds are also
seen (Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pls. 84-96).
4.3. Relative Dating of Höyücek
The early ceramics from Höyücek’s ESP3 are fine-medium wares with a variety of dark
surface colors and no burnishing. Only seven examples are demonstrated in the
monograph (Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pl. 33). The forms are simple open shapes without
clear morphological characteristics. The following ESP2 pottery with its fineness,
variety of surface colors, red slip and burnishing as well as the presence of tubular lugs,
oval bases and bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, find their best parallels in Hacılar IX-VI,
Kuruçay 13-12 and Bademağacı ENII. Clear presence of RSBW from the early horizon
might suggest a date closer to Hacılar VII-VI, then IX-VIII which are known for their
pottery being light grey-cream. Existence of a painted jar neck from the horizon points
out production of painted pottery already in this stage. The parallels I could find for such
linear decoration on neck are rather late. They come from Hacılar I (compare Mellaart
1970: Pls. 141-145), Kuruçay 11 Alt (Duru 1994: Lev. 58.2) and Kuruçay 7 (Duru 1994:
Lev. 171.8).
The following phase has the dominance of RSBW with highly typical vessels with
pronounced ‘s’-shaped profiles and tubular lugs. Anti-splash rims from this level are not
foreign to the region either, appearing at Hacılar VI and Bademağacı ENII. Animal
shaped handles are a trait of Hacılar VI. The fantastic shaped vessels from Höyücek
seem to be peculiar to this settlement and give the impression of being churns due to
their body shapes. Finally the deep marble bowl with ‘s’-shaped profile from Höyücek
has exact parallels at Hacılar VI (see Mellaart 1970: Pl. CXII).
Two “offering tables” from Höyücek are also worth mentioning in terms of dating. Duru
(1993: 132) dates these objects initially to LN by arguing that there are fundamental
similarities between the architectural remains from “Shrine Phase” and Hacılar VI.
However, for some reason, the same level is dated to “EN II” in the final publication.
The so-called “offering tables” have a widespread distribution in Anatolia and Southeast
Europe. Similar vessels are known in Lake District from Hacılar V, IV and II as well as
300
from Kuruçay 10-7, also from Çatalhöyük West, thus a feature of more EC than LN.
Çatalhöyük East Level III yielded one example which suggests a date of LN-EC
transition (for details see Schwarzberg 2005). In any case, an EN designation for these
objects is simply incorrect. LN-EC transition seems to be best option for a date from this
level, relying on the available archaeological data. Duru’s initial dating of the offering
tables from Höyücek seems correct.
The next level is more related to EC of Hacılar with carination on bowls, disappearance
of tubular lugs and existence of cream-on-red painted wares. Besides, the decreasing
quality of pottery remarked by Duru is echoed by Mellaart (1970: 133) for Hacılar I
pottery which “does not reach the sophisticated standard of the Hacılar II ware.”
Disappearance of tubular lugs, which is observed at Hacılar IV and Kuruçay 8, is another
morphological change known from EC pottery.
White-on-red painted wares from this level are also encountered at Bademağacı LN-EC
level and at Hacılar VI and I. The motif seen on Duru 2007: Fig. 40 corresponds to
Mellaart’s “fantastic style” and finds good parallels in Hacılar II. Pedestals begin to
appear with Hacılar VI and continue into Hacılar II. Thus the pottery from this final
settlement fits well into the advanced stages of EC but clearly preceding Hacılar I.
Our relative dating from the region concludes that Höyücek ESP-SP levels are of “LN”
age, probably contemporary with Hacılar VII-VI whereas “Sanctuaries Phase” is EC.
Sanctuaries phase pre-dates Hacılar I. Existence of an “EN” settlement, similar to
Çatalhöyük’s early Levels XII-VIII, cannot be justified at Höyücek as suggested by the
excavators. However the earliest pottery recovered from the deep sondage is an
indication of a horizon before the appearance of RSBW at the site which might be
contemporary with or earlier than Hacılar IX. Unfortunately low sample size from this
particular phase makes it hard to draw reliable conclusions. The carbon dates indicate
that the site’s basal deposits are probably date to the mid 7th millennium cal. BCE.
5. Comparing Lake District with Central-West Anatolia
The above analysis was intended to present not only the general characteristics of Lake
District ceramic assemblages but also to demonstrate certain chronological problems
related to misinterpretation of these assemblages. As Schoop (2002: 434) already stated,
it is now clear that an “EN” stage in Lake District, similar to early levels of Çatalhöyük
East (XII-IX), cannot be established for the region. The comparative analysis of
301
Çatalhöyük ceramics with Lake District sites seem to have confirmed Schoop’s
arguments regarding the pre-7000 cal. BCE dates for basal Bademağacı as proposed by
Duru (Last 2005: 138; Cessford 2005: 97). Based on the radiocarbon determinations
from Çatalhöyük East and Bademağacı ENII Cessford (2005: 97) proposed that
Bademağacı ENII 4-1 could correspond to late Çatalhöyük sequence spanning Levels
VI-II and even later.
Even the earliest pottery from the region bears distinct similarities to Hacılar IX-VI
horizon. The ENI 9-5 pottery from Bademağacı might be an immediate predecessor of
Hacılar IX and can easily antedate Hacılar IX, however very limited sample size from
these levels impedes precise relative dating. In terms of absolute dating, there is
unfortunately only one carbon date from early accumulations from Bademağacı (ENI-8)
which dates to 7035-6705 cal. BCE (at 1 σ). This single date (together with the famous
BM-127 date from Hacılar’s Aceramic Phase V) are used by Duru (1999; 2007) to
justify his EN dating of Bademağacı contemporary with Çatalhöyük XII, although he
admits that there is not a single correlation between Çatalhöyük XII-X ceramics and
Lake District’s “EN I” ceramics (Duru 2007: 356).
Despite the flimsy nature of the data, the single date from Bademağacı ENI-8 is
significant and cannot be argued away. Especially if one considers the early dates from
Ulucak Vf-VIa, basal Menteşe, possible 7th millennium remains from Aşağı Pınar and
PPN levels at Keçiçayırı, the possibility that Western Anatolia was already inhabited by
early farming communities at the end of the 8th millennium BCE gains strength.
Therefore, more sites which date to 7000-6500 cal. BCE in Western Anatolia can be
expected to be discovered in near future.
What Duru as “ENII” labeled should be corrected as “LN”, because “ENII” levels of
Bademağacı and Höyücek, in terms of the entire material culture but mostly through
ceramic comparisons, show strong parallels to Hacılar VI. At Kuruçay however the
pottery even from the earliest debris (Levels 13 and 12) seem to be post-dating Hacılar
VI, thus falling into the transition from LN to EC.
Finally, the Bademağacı “LN-ECh”, Kuruçay 12-7 and Höyücek “Sanctuaries Phase”
and “Mixed Accumulation” are obviously EC in date having numerous similarities to
Hacılar V-I. All these sites can be differentiated from Hacılar I on grounds of their
ceramics. Kuruçay 7 is among them is chronologically closest to Hacılar I but ends prior
302
to it. At Höyücek, the “Sanctuaries Phase” likewise ends before Hacılar I. In my opinion,
a relative date of Hacılar II would be appropriate for Bademağacı “LN-ECh”, Kuruçay
11-7 and Höyücek “Sanctuaries Phase”. Schoop (2005a: 190) suggests that the gap
between Hacılar II and I can be filled with Kuruçay 11-7 as these contain major elements
seen in Hacılar I but, as we already mentioned, lack the form variability. Appearance of
inner buttresses at Kuruçay 7 is also echoed at Hacılar II-I, providing an important
argument for dating. Thus before we go into the comparison of two regions, one can
propose the following equations:
Early Neolithic IDuru ≤ Early-Late NeolithicMellaart
Early Neolithic IIDuru ≈ Late NeolithicMellaart
Late Neolithic-Early ChalcolithicDuru ≈ Early ChalcolithicMellaart ±[Hacılar I]
A clarification of issues of relative chronology was of enormous significance in order to
begin our ceramic comparison with Central-West Anatolia. Above, ceramic comparisons
of Hacılar and Ulucak have already been provided in detail. The reason why we
exclusively compared these two mounds lies in Hacılar’s stratigraphically and
chronologically reliable data as well as its detailed report. Through such a one-to-one
comparative approach, it was possible to demonstrate that Ulucak Vb-f dates earlier than
Hacılar IX but is sturdily associated with it, probably an immediate predecessor. Early
Ulucak IV may well be contemporary with Hacılar IX-VII. On the other hand, the final
occupation at Ulucak IV should be set contemporary to Hacılar VI-II. We suggested that
Hacılar I is later than terminal Ulucak IV.
Relying on our comparative approach for the Central-West Anatolian sites which
suggested contemporaneity of Agio Gala Lower Cave, Yeşilova Early-Middle and
Çukuriçi with Ulucak V-Early Ulucak IV, one can establish correlations with Lake
District sites easily. According to our results from the above analysis, it is possible to
suggest that these sites were inhabited contemporarily with Lake District LN horizon,
e.g. Hacılar IX-VI, Bademağacı ENI-II, Höyücek ESP-Shrine Phase and Kuruçay 13.
Indeed pottery assemblages from the both regions contain extreme similarities in both
fabric and morphology.
5.1. Fabric and Wares
First of all, the quasi-absence of coarse wares at both regions is a fundamental common
approach to pottery production that is of great importance as it indicates that cooking on
303
fire was not the primary function attributed to pottery. Pottery was produced to function
as serving-pouring and storage containers. The nature of monochrome wares with their
thin walls, fineness, mainly slipped and carefully burnished surfaces are equally matched
at both regions. The ever increasing and dominating production of RSBW is another
major common trait that links these regions. Existence of CSBW from the both areas
only adds to the extensive resemblances detected.
Although for Central-West Anatolia change from mineral to organic inclusions can be
used as a chronological trait, it is not possible to do the same between Lake District and
Central-West Anatolia. Mineral inclusions in Central-West Anatolia are known from
Yeşilova Early-Late, Ege Gübre, Çukuriçi, Agio Gala and Ulucak V whereas Ulucak IV,
Yeşilova Late and Dedecik-Heybelitepe pottery contained organic non-plastics. In any
case, organic inclusions are completely absent in Lake District where both Duru and
Mellaart underline the fact that clays are clean and inclusions are only mineral in nature.
There are some other common traits in the fabric and wares such as the presence of
white-on-red pottery, although sporadic, at Ege Gübre, Çukuriçi and Agio Gala,
indicating that the EC horizon is also present at these settlements. It is worth noting here
that one white-on-red bodysherd from Çukuriçi that shows dots as paint decoration,
unfortunately from an unstratified deposit,61 finds a nice parallel at Hacılar I (see
Mellaart 1970: Pl. CXI).
What is clearly not matched in these regions in terms of wares is the amount of red-on-
cream painted wares in Central-West Anatolia. Around 20 pieces, mostly small
bodysherds, are unearthed from Ulucak IV-V. However for instance at Hacılar VI they
already constitute almost 10% of the entire pottery assemblage. In Hacılar V, as Mellaart
(1970) states, already 20% is composed of cream-on-red painted pottery! As we already
pointed out, Ulucak IV is most probably abandoned prior to Hacılar I. If both regions
showed a parallel development with regard to painted wares we should have identified a
gradual increase in the painted pottery at Ulucak Late IV. This is clearly not the case.
Apart from the red-on-cream painted anthropomorphic vessel from Ulucak IVb and few
bodysherds painted wares are by no means increasing in quantity. The situation cannot
be related to the excavation strategies or small sample size either, as large-scale
horizontal excavations have been conducted especially on this level. Besides, none of the
other excavations and surveys revealed painted pottery in high amounts. It is always, as a
61 Personal communication with B. Horejs.
304
rule, confined to few bodysherds. There are two possible explanations for the described
situation:
1. Production of painted pottery is never adapted in Central-West Anatolia.
2. Early Chalcolithic sites with high quantities of painted pottery are yet to be discovered in Central-West Anatolia.
The first explanation is supported by the current archaeological evidence from Central-
West Anatolia. It is clear that Cenral-West Anatolian groups are technologically capable
of producing painted pottery and they are also aware of the production in neighboring
areas, yet, they do not choose to follow the trend. This reminds us of ethnographic and
historic examples provided by Lemonnier (1993: 1) who suggests that knowledge of a
new technology or technique does not automatically result in acceptance by a given
society and that social conditions and circumstances play a vital role in the adaption of
any technical novelty. For instance, Pétrequin (1993: 46-47) argues that the cord-
impressed beakers were not adapted by farmers in the Jura Mountains as a result of
cultural rejection. A similar case is detected in Northwestern Anatolia where at
“Fikirtepe sites” painted pottery is virtually absent despite possible contemporaneity
with Hacılar LN. Only at Demircihöyük in Eskişehir around 150 sherds of Hacılar
cream-on-red type were identified from unstratified debris (Seeher 1987). Therefore,
transition from monochrome to painted wares is not a phenomenon that is universally
detected in Anatolia. On the other hand, it should be brought up here that, contrary to
Central-West Anatolia, at Fikirtepe sites RSBW is never accounted as the dominating
ware. This is an important observation that implies a development scheme for Fikirtepe
sites that is from the beginning dissimilar from the Lake District sequence. It is not the
place here to discuss the possible origins of Fikirtepe Culture, but for our purpose it is
significant to recognize the divergent origins of Northwest vs. Central-West Anatolian
Cultures. Hence, it remains unclarified why Central-West Anatolian cultures did not
adapt Hacılar style painted pottery, although previous ceramic traditions show stark
parallels. In my opinion, cultural rejection on the side of the Central-West Anatolian
communities is plausible.
The second possibility is admittedly made on negative evidence. There is one expression
archaeologists like to remind for such cases: Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. The current data from the excavated sites in Central-West Anatolia indicate a
simultaneous abandonment of settlements in the beginning of EC period. The cause of
305
this region-wide event is for the time being not clearly understood, although arid
conditions created by an abrupt climate change around 6200 cal. BCE can be hold
responsible for it (Weninger et al. 2005). Consequently, the new settlements were not
located on old mounds anymore but different locations were preferred for newly founded
settlements. It seems like these settlements never became mounds due to socio-
economical instability. As a result, as it is the case with the mounds, they are buried
under thick alluvium accumulations or inundated by the rising sea levels around 5500
cal. BCE, thus cannot be detected by surveys anymore. As stated above, this is a
scenario based on absence of evidence and some assumptions that need testing. For the
time being, both possibilities are seemingly plausible depending on the viewpoint.
Özdoğan, for instance, holds the second scenario much more plausible.62
Not less exciting than the question of painted wares is the issue of impressed wares. The
situation is, in a way, the reversed version of the painted wares. Why impressed pottery
is not produced at Lake District sites while it makes up 5-10% of LN assemblages in
Central-West Anatolia? It is a well-known fact that impressed pottery, also known as
“Cardial” or “Impresso”, is the most distinctive and characteristic trait of littoral EN
Mediterranean horizon (Barnett 2000: 93; Binder 2000: 122). It was previously assumed
that this pottery originated in Greece and Mersin-Yumuktepe where similar wares have
been discovered (Garstang 1953). Recent excavations at Mezraa Teleilat on Euphrates,
in Urfa Region, and Tell Sabi Abyad in Balikh Valley revealed that impressed pottery
was produced towards the end of pottery Neolithic by these inland communities to a
large extent too. Impressed pottery from these sites displays a variety of decoration
techniques, from single to continuous impressions that create wavy lines, dots, or other
motifs (Özdoğan 2007a; Güldoğan 2007; Nieuwenhuyse 2007: 169). It is not our
intention here to discuss the origins of impressed wares from the Western
Mediterranean. It suffices us to demonstrate that Neolithic impressed pottery is attested
in the entire Mediterranean, including some inland regions like Urfa and Northern Syria.
In these regions, impressed wares and red slipped pottery are produced simultaneously in
the later stages of the pre-Halaf period and in transitional period where they completely
disappear with the beginning of Halaf period (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: 162-169; Özdoğan
2007a).
62 Personal communication with M. Özdoğan (03.03.2009).
306
As mentioned above, impressed pottery is likewise known from Central-West Anatolian
sites, including Ulucak. The impressed pottery from Central-West Anatolian sites are
very analogous to each other showing clear divergences from the specimens known from
Eastern Mediterranean such as Mersin, Mezraa Teleilat and Tell Sabi Abyad. Ulucak
impressed decoration are made on either RSBW or what I called “Gray Wares”
(unslipped and unburnished medium wares) with single impressions that cover the entire
surface of a vessel. Continuous execution of impressions, made with a comb-like
instrument or a mollusk shell, is not attested in the assemblage. Same goes true for the
other Central-West Anatolian sites such as Yeşilova Late, Ege Gübre, Çukuriçi and
Dedecik-Heybelitepe, where impressed decoration show almost identical characteristics,
both in terms of ware and type of impressions, to Ulucak examples. As a result, one can
easily speak of a “Central-West Anatolian type” of impressed pottery which is made on
RSBW or Gray Wares which basically lacks continuous impressions of any type. Müller
(1988: 106) termed such impressed wares as “Impresso A” which precedes “Impresso B”
with continuous impressions.
At the Lake District sites, impressed pottery is sporadically found. At Höyücek’s latest
“Mixed Accumulation” a number of impressed pieces, which are morphologically and
visually similar to Central-West Anatolian impressed wares, have been discovered. They
are found on bowls and deep bowls with convex or ‘s’-shaped profiles as well as on jars
(Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pls. 95-96). It is a pity that these ceramics were found in
stratigraphically disturbed contexts. However, generally the “Mixed Accumulation”
yielded pottery which can be securely dated to the EC period. This might indicate that
impressed pottery was also produced or brought to the site during this period. Such a
dating is also in accordance with Ulucak IV where analogous impressed wares have been
excavated.
There are two additional exceptions from the region which are of interest to us. First
example is a jar fragment from Hacılar I with impressions (Mellaart 1970: Pl. CXI.5)
that cover the whole surface. The impressions are irregular and confined to shallow thin
and short horizontal shapes. Mellaart (1970: 131) maintains that the few impressed
pottery found in Hacılar I has nothing to do with the “barbotine and cardium decorated
wares of the Balkans and Thessaly.” Second is a small bodysherd from an unstratified
Bademağacı context with intense, regular upside down triangular impressions (Duru
1996: Lev. 14). All of these examples would be equally at home in Central-West
307
Anatolia however this does not undermine the fact that impressed pottery was not
produced in Lake District in similar quantities to Central-West Anatolia. As a result, the
sporadic occurrence of impressed wares in the Lake District impedes a clear
chronological connection with Central-West Anatolia but may be implying cultural
contacts that were not commonly shared by both regions. In other words, presence of
impressed pottery at Central-West Anatolian sites might be an outcome of social and
cultural contacts established with coastal cultures of Aegean and Mediterranean. Such
contacts might not have been established in Lake District due to its inland location far
from the littoral areas. The nearest connection to the sea and littoral settlements is
provided by the Çubuk Pass on Taurus Mountains, on which Bademağacı is located.
Similarly, Höyücek is also located in the southern section of Lake District,
geographically close to the littoral areas. Impressed sherds from Höyücek and
Bademağacı might have been an indication of contacts with the coastal region. Positive
evidence confirming presence of EC inhabitance is proven by a corresponding deposit
from Karain Cave Chamber B where a paved surface and red-on-cream painted pottery,
even a complete jar with funnel neck, have been excavated (Yalçınkaya 2008: 473; Res.
1). Yalçınkaya indicates that the painted designs on the sherds resemble the “fantastic
style” of Lake District region, and thus may belong to the Hacılar V-II and Kuruçay 10-8
horizons. Karain as the only littoral site excavated in the region with evidence from EC
period verifies that the analogous ceramic tradition to Lake District was prevailing in
this region and that both areas were in contact. The reason why impressed sherds are so
infrequent in the Lake District while red-on-cream pottery is clearly adapted by the
littoral population is not clear.
5.2. Morphology
Almost all major vessel shapes that define LN ceramic assemblages of Lake District find
their perfect match in Central-West Anatolia. Bowls and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles, hole-mouth jars, jars with globular bodies, bowls with convex profiles, hole-
mouth bowls, jars with short necks and jars with funnel necks are major common
elements that are abundantly encountered in both regions. The divergences between the
two regions are hidden in the small details so to speak.
Vertically placed tubular lug is another morphological feature that occurs in both regions
in the LN horizon. Tubular lugs are in the early stages of LN, in both regions, high in
quantity, mainly thin-long or short-thick in shape, frequently set in pairs on jars. In the
308
following stage, there is a decrease in their numbers in both regions. Other types of lugs
and handles replace their function. In Central-West Anatolia, horizontally or diagonally
placed single knobs on vessel body as well as double-knobs are seen. Double-knobs, a
feature of Ulucak IV pottery, are not attested at Lake District LN sites where animal
shaped handles and pierced knobs are preferred. Small loop handles are found at both
regions, though rare. Basket handles are absent at Central-West Anatolia where as in
Hacılar IX and Bademağacı EN they are present.
Oval bases, a trait of post-Hacılar IX, are known, besides Ulucak IV, at Ege Gübre and
Agio Gala. Oval bases and in general oval forms are a characteristic of advanced stages
of LN and early stages of EC. In Ulucak V, not a single oval shaped base or vessel was
recovered. On the other hand, disc bases are produced in both regions from LN into EC.
At Ulucak, we were able to demonstrate that carinated flat bases decrease sharply in
number from Level V into Level IV. Flat bases are a defining feature of late Ulucak IV.
However disc bases by no means disappear entirely from the assemblage. At other
Central-West Anatolian sites both types are encountered. Ring bases are on the other
hand rarely produced at both regions. At Hacılar they are found with Level III, at
Kuruçay with Level 11. Sporadic appearance of ring base is attested at Ulucak V and IV
but as in Lake District is not a major trait of pottery assemblage.
One peculiar base type links Central-West Anatolia with Lake District: Stepped-cross
shaped raised base. Such bases are known from Hacılar VI, Höyücek Shrine Phase and
Ege Gübre (Fig. 6.17).
An altogether absence of carinated forms from Central-West Anatolia, if it is not a local
characteristic of Lake District, can be construed as a chronological marker as it suggests
Figure 6.17: Stepped-cross or cross shaped bases. 1: Höyücek Shrine Phase (after Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pl. 60.3) 2-3: Hacılar VI (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 57.12-13)
309
that all of these settlements were abandoned prior to advanced stages of EC or the
occupation was very brief in nature in Central-West Anatolia. This statement suggests
that sequence available from Kuruçay 11-7, Höyücek Shrine-Early Sanctuaries Phases
and Hacılar V-I is not represented in this region at all. Carination is clearly a feature of
EC that cannot be matched in Central-West Anatolia.
Other strong material cultural resemblances between Lake District and Central-West
Anatolia, apart from implying contemporaneity, also point out close cultural affiliations,
long-term social contacts and common origins.
E. Elmalı Plain Sites
There are three sites which yielded LN-EC pottery during the surveys carried out by
Mellink in the 1970’s from Elmalı Plain which we would like to summarize here as they
represent the only archaeological material of this age from this particular region between
the littoral Antalya and inland Lake District. Elmalı Plain is a inter mountain plan that is
located on an altitude of more than 1000 m. The survey material from these sites has
been published by Christine Eslick in 1992 which we will use as our main source of
information. The survey sites where LN-EC material was discovered are named
Gökpınar, Akçay and Tekke. Gökpınar was detected as a villager dug a well while
Akçay and Tekke were surveyed by M.S.F. Hood and M. Mellink.
It is understood that the collected pottery from these sites were small in size. The ware is
fairly homogeneous having mineral (grit and schist) inclusions. The cores of pottery
from Akçay and Gökpınar have dark colored centers. The surfaces are slipped which is
Figure 6.18: Possible LN-EC pottery collected during the Elmalı Plain survey from Gökpınar and Akçay (modified after Eslick 1992: Pl. 79 and 77)
310
usually streaky. The color of the slip ranges from brown, dark red to red and orange. The
pottery has thin walls and fine appearance.
Among the common vessels shapes are hole-mouth bowls, jars with necks, jars with
inverted rims and deep bowls (Fig. 6.18). Tubular lugs and loop handles are attested.
Bases are flat. A number of painted sherds, pink-red to light brown over white slip, have
been encountered at Akçay and Tekke. Paint was made in linear bands or of swags.
Incisions are also attested at Akçay (Eslick 1992: 59-64).
The pottery described by Eslick has certain similarities to wares from Bademağacı ENI-
II, especially the presence of a streaky red slip. Presence of painted wares indicates a
possible EC occupation at Akçay and Tekke. Tubular lugs, jars with funnel necks and
hole-mouth jars find good parallels in the entire LN-EC horizon of Lake District. At
Ulucak, jars with funnel necks are more related to younger phases of the sequence (IVb-
c), although they persist into Early IV. Unfortunately the bad preservation and small size
of the samples prevent us from making more precise correlations.
F. Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya Plain
Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya Plain are characterized by open-woodland and grass-
land emerged after the onset of Holocene which brought ever increasing humidity during
the Neolithic period which presented various habitats including mixed forests, well-
watered plains and wet lands, suitable for hunting-gathering as well as farming activities
(Kuzucuoğlu 2002: 39-43). Permanent settlements founded by hunter-gatherers in
transition to a food-producing economy have been well recorded at Can Hasan III in
southern Konya Plain as well as at Aşıklı and Musular in the neighboring region along
the Melendiz River (see below). Area A at Pınarbaşı and Çatalhöyük East’s pre-XII
deposits are most likely permanent aceramic occupations which are currently being
investigated. Further evidence regarding aceramic Neolithic sites has been recorded
during Konya Plain survey (Baird 2002: Fig. 7).
Epi-Paleolithic sub-stratum in this region is documented during Konya Plain survey
conducted by D. Baird (1996 and 2002) which recorded four find spots with microlithic
elements indicating a date prior to 7500 cal. BCE. Good evidence of Epi-Paleolithic
occupation of the region comes from a single site, Pınarbaşı, which is excavated on and
off since 1994 by T. Watkins and D. Baird of Liverpool University (for details see
Watkins 1996 and Baird 2007). Pınarbaşı Area B is a rock shelter used as a seasonal
311
camping-hunting-fishing site which produced microlithic industry predominated by
obsidian geometrics, lunates and micro-scrapers which is, for the time being dated, dated
to pre-9000 cal. BCE (Baird 2007: 289). Baird pinpoints significant similarities in the
material culture and burial customs as a result of mobility and exchange relations with
Natufian and Southeast Anatolian sites while the lithic industry is in the similar lines as
Öküzini in Antalya (Baird 2007: 294).
Despite the low number of excavations in the region that focus on the pre-Neolithic
occupation of the area, current archaeological evidence indicates that mobile hunter-
gatherer-fisher groups exploited the natural resources and raw materials available in the
region, prior to the onset of Holocene. The rich environmental resources and suitable
climatic conditions created by Holocene conditions even permitted for permanent
villages to be founded which did not entirely rely on food-producing economy in their
earlier stages. In this respect, Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya Plain, actually Central
Anatolia in general, resembles Southwest Asian transitional stages to sedentism and
farming and contrasts with West Anatolia (Schoop 2005b).
1. Suberde
Suberde is a mound discovered during a survey in 1963 by R. Solecki and W. Farrand
and subsequently excavated by J. Bordaz between 1964-1965. The village with the same
name is located 11 km southeast of Seydişehir in the Taurus Mountains on an altitude of
1070 m. The site is located on 30 m high limestone ridge that is located in close
proximity to Lake Suğla (Bordaz 1965: 31).
Three levels of occupation have been identified through the excavations. The surface
layer (1.5 m thick) included Neolithic finds as well as Roman-Byzantine-Ottoman
material. The second and third layers which were heavily disturbed by the upper layers,
are identified as “Neolithic” and contained remains of mudbrick houses and plastered
floors as well as clay bins (Bordaz 1966: 32). Bordaz (1965: 32) mentions finding
coarsely made pottery with organic inclusions and walls that are 1.5-2 cm thick, but in
the following report Bordaz (1966: 32) maintains that these belonged to a “lining of the
basins” not to a jar. Hence, Bordaz (1973: 283) asserts that Suberde was an “Aceramic
Neolithic village”, despite the presence of clay figurines. The material culture also
includes polished axes, a copper wire, obsidian tools and cores.
312
The ceramic material collected during Bordaz excavations, 16 ceramic sherds, and since
then stored in Konya Museum has been studied by Serap Özdöl who distinguishes two
wares: Coarse, large organic and brown grit tempered, porous ware and another less
coarse ware with occasional red slip. The only vessel form she could identify from the
small assemblage is a bowl with inverted rim and convex or globular body (Özdöl
2008a: 378-379).
It is seen that Suberde is not an “Aceramic” village as proposed by the excavator in the
early 1970’s. It was probably the Zeitgeist which pursued him to designate Suberde as an
“Aceramic” village. However the very low number of ceramics from the site is still
meaningful and should not be dismissed as an indication of an Early Pottery Neolithic
stage. One carbon date from the site gave the calibrated result of 6570±140 BCE.
2. Erbaba
Erbaba is located 10 km northwest of town Beyşehir and 1.5 km East of Lake Beyşehir
on a natural hill. The excavations were carried out between 1969-1978 by a team
directed by J. Bordaz.
The site contained three levels all belonging to the Neolithic period. Archaeological
material from later periods was not present at all. The latest level revealed well-
preserved structures made out of uncut limestone blocks which cover an area of 5000 m2.
The houses are clustered and square to rectangular in plan with thick foundations (see
Bordaz 1982: Lev. 33). It is suggested that the entrance to the houses were provided
through the roofs as no doorways were excavated (Bordaz 1982: 87). The lower layers
were void of real architecture and contained “superimposed mud floors” and “large
number of brown, black and red-burnt lenses and rubble” (Bordaz 1982: 89; Bordaz
1966: 7-8). A piece red painted plaster has also been found in the lower Layer II. Layer
III is heavily destroyed by the upper occupations but contained remains of walls and
floors as well as other archaeological material (Bordaz 1982: 90).
Two ceramic wares have been distinguished at the site. These are “thin-gritty ware”
which is the only ceramic ware of Layer III and “shell tempered ware” which makes up
2/3 of the assemblage in Layers II-I. Bordaz and Bordaz (1976: 42) describe the first
ware as follows: “thin, gritty monochrome fabric, usually black-smudged but also
brown-buff and red in color.”
313
Shell Tempered Ware has likewise grey-buff surface with occasionally brown and red
examples. Bordaz and Bordaz (1976: 42) point out that the clay used for the production
of this ware contained large quantities of gastropod shells in its natural state. In other
words, shell was not a real temper but a natural non-plastic inclusion already available in
the clay when it was mined. Other qualities of Shell Tempered Ware are identical to
Thin-Gritty Ware.
The most frequently appearing forms at the site are hole-mouth jars, bowls with straight
sides and jars with slightly everted necks (Bordaz 1982: 88). Bases are mainly simple
flat. Pottery from Layers II-I with gastropod inclusions show some distinctive
morphological traits like ring and pedestal bases, crescentic shaped ledge handles,
vertical tubular lugs, few carinated profiles, relief decoration including the form of
bucranium and rarely red bands on rim (Bordaz and Bordaz 1976: 42).
3. Çatalhöyük East
Çatalhöyük is located in close vicinity of Küçükköy, 52 km southeast of Konya, 11 km
North of Çumra. The mound is located on the eastern bank of Çarbamba River, one of
the most important fresh water sources for Konya Plain that originates from Beyşehir
Lake. The mound, with a height of 21 m below and above the present plain level, is 980
m. above sea level and covers an area of 13.5 hectares. The founding of the settlement
follows the early accumulation of alluvium in the plain directly on lake-marl deposits
around 8000-7500 cal. BCE. The immediate environment of Çatalhöyük is described as
an active alluvial fan and wetland occupied by marshes (Rosen and Roberts 2005: 45-48;
Fairbairn, Near and Martinoli 2005: 145).
Çatalhöyük was discovered during 1958 survey of Mellaart, French and Hall (Mellaart
1961b). Excavations under the direction of J. Mellaart have taken place between 1961-
1965. Recent excavations at the site are directed by I. Hodder since 1993 which not only
apply post-processual approach to field practice (Hodder 1997) but also produce
immense amounts of data concerning multiple aspects of past environment and lifeways
at Çatalhöyük published in six monographs edited by I. Hodder (1996, 2000, 2005a,
2005b, 2005c, 2006).
Mellaart identified 12 levels on the mound, from 0-XII, which has been adapted by
Hodder’s team to a large extent. Byzantine and Hellenistic remains are also encountered
on the surface. The levels which were excavated in large-scale by Mellaart are VII-II,
314
with VII, VIA and VIB being the most well-known. The earlier levels have been
excavated in limited areas whereas the Level XII was reached after a deep sounding
(Mellaart 1966: 167). Accumulations that pre-date XII are called as “XII A-D” which
designates pre-pottery levels at the site (see Hodder 2007: Fig. 2). Pre XII-E and even
older deposits may exist at the site (Cessford 2005: 68).
The occupational layers at Çatalhöyük East are composed of rectilinear mud houses
without stone foundations that are clustered around “neighborhoods” of which 140 were
completely excavated (Mellaart 1962: 46; Cutting 2005: 161). Düring (2006: 60) states
that the earlier level houses were made out of mud-slab whereas mudbrick is observed
only in the later stages. The roofs are flat and were used as activity areas. The entrance to
the houses which might contain a second-storey was provided by stairs and through the
roof. Burials are found frequently under the floors in the houses. Alleys and open areas
are located between such clustered house complexes. The houses have inner divisions,
screen walls or raised areas that were used for different purposes. A constant change of
the inner organization of architectural elements, platforms, bins, ovens and stairs, and
renewal of the wall plaster are typical features for Çatalhöyük houses. Wall paintings
and platforms of or embedded bull horns, molded figures are found occasionally in the
buildings which led Mellaart to identify such buildings as “shrines”. The current project
asserts that such buildings were used as domestic units but contained “ritually elaborate”
elements (Hodder 2007). The paintings might depict hunting scenes as well as floral-
geometric motifs.
The process of filling houses with sterile soil is attested well at Çatalhöyük East which
contributed enormously to the building of the mound and well-preservation of the
remains including organic substances. The continuation in the architecture is reported to
be clear between Levels VII-III. With Levels III-II the buildings are not arranged so
packed as in the earlier levels (Cutting 2005: 161). Düring observes remarkable change
in the spatial organization of the houses with Level VIA-V which also encompass
various other changes in the material culture ranging from the ceramics, figurines to
lithic industry (Düring 2002: 221-222).
The subsistence relies mainly on domesticated sheep-goat supported by lower amounts
of cattle, pigs, deer and equus (Russell and Martin 2005: Fig. 2.1) and cultivation of
cereals (various wheat and barley types) and legumes predominated by lentil, bitter vetch
315
and pea while a wide variety of food sources such as nuts, wild fruits and tubers
(Fairbairn et al. 2005: 172-175).
In the lithic technology, which comprises of more than 90% obsidian, a sudden change
from a flake-based to blade-based technology has been noticed around Level VI. Multi-
platform flake cores and tools on flakes are associated with Levels X-VIB. Blades are
typically produced on prismatic cores starting with Level VI and continue until Level II.
Some special objects such as obsidian mirrors and flint dagger are likewise seen after the
transition to blade-based production (Conolly 1999: 76).
Large number of carbon dates are available from the site (see Cessford 2005). They
indicate that the mound was continuously settled from around 7400-7100 until 6200-
5900 cal. BCE (Hodder 2005: 5). Level II at the site is dated to 6310-6220 cal. BCE (at
68% probability) whereas Levels I and 0 are not dated in absolute terms (Cessford 2005:
75; see also Cessford 2005: Tab. 4.2).
Ceramics
One remark made by Mellaart
indicates that pottery, in contrast to
usual archaeological practice, was
not considered a find category that
is of primary concern. His remark is
as follows (Mellaart 1963: 101): “If
one single category of finds at
Çatalhöyük might be described as
relatively rare and unimportant,
then it is pottery.” It is understood
that the quantity of pottery from all
Neolithic levels from Çatalhöyük
were low and became lower as one reached the earlier deposits. Mellaart (1966: 170)
points out that only 300 sherds were unearthed in a deep sounding made in 1965 that
covered Levels XII-VIB. Despite the low number of pottery from the site, certain
developments in the wares and forms could have been established which we will present
below.
Figure 6.19: Cream burnished organic tempered coarse pottery from Çatalhöyük XII-XI (after Mellaart 1966: Fig. 4)
316
The pottery from the lowest levels (XII-XI) are described as “heavy buff, cream or light
grey ware, with grits and straw, but already burnished” which Mellaart (1966) names
“Cream Burnished Ware” while the current project prefers the designation “Cream
Organic Ware” (Yalman 2006). The organic material used as temper in clay is identified
as chopped grass or cereal (wheat and barley) straw (Last 2005: 104). Last interprets the
presence of shell fragments in the paste as natural inclusion in the clay. Vessels are low-
fired, porous and fractures are dark grey-black colored. The mean wall thickness is 1.1
cm. Mottling on surface is very common. Red wash was observed on some examples
while paint is confined to few pieces (Fig. 6.19). Another group of pottery has been
identified in these early levels which are characterized by their mineral (sand) tempers
and slightly thinner walls (mean value=8.6 mm) from the above described group (Last
2005: 105). The prevalent vessel shapes in this very early stage are “deep bowls with
heavy flat bases”, “simple bowls”, “shallow basins” and few “oval vessels”. Squat forms
and flat rims are prevailing. Functional additions to vessel body such handles and lugs
are absent (Mellaart 1966: 170).
“Dark Burnished Ware” or “Dark Mineral Standard
Ware” is the name of a fabric that appears in
Çatalhöyük sequence in Level VIII (Fig. 6.20). This
fabric is considered typical for Levels VII, VIA and
VIB but continue in decreasing numbers until Level I.
A sudden increase in the Dark Burnished Ware is
documented with Level VII (Last 2005: 106). It is thin-
walled (mean value= 5.9 mm), grit tempered and
mainly burnished with reddish-brownish-black surface
colors. The walls are considerably thinner and larger
diameters are encountered than the Cream Organic
Tempered Wares indicating a clear improvement in the
ceramic technology as well as a possible transformation of the pottery function. Last
indicates that mineral tempered wares are more suitable to cooking purposes which has
been collaborated by the data obtained from organic residue analysis (Last 2005: 128).
The mineral temper includes mainly quartz together with various volcanic-originated
minerals such as feldspars, amphiboles and hornblendes (Last 2005: 105). In addition to
this finer mineral tempered ware, chaff tempered pottery continue to be produced. Last
(1996: 116) points out that 70% of Level V rimsherds belong to hole-mouth (restricted)
Figure 6.20: Typical dark burnished hole-mouth jar from Çatalhöyük VII-IV (after Özdöl 2008b: Res. 2)
317
forms. Only with Level IV does one encounter more developed forms which show
angles, short necks and ‘s’-shaped forms (Last 2005: 111).
Lighter colors are increasingly encountered with Level V onwards where cream, orange,
red colors are observed more frequently. The so-called Orange Paste Ware and Cream
Mineral Ware are current names preferred by Çatalhöyük project to label such fabrics
that predominantly occur in Levels IV-I (Yalman 2006). The dark colored fine burnished
wares are continued to be produced but in lower numbers and new fabrics are
distinguished in the assemblage (Yalman and Özdöl 2003: 89).
Özdöl (2008a: 379) mentions that mineral tempered red slipped wares occur with Level
VI onwards. The most common form is hole-mouth jar with globular body (Fig. 6.21).
Lugs are very rarely found before Level VI. When they are found, they appear
commonly on hole-mouth vessels. Last distinguishes three types of lugs, all pierced,
according to their profiles: Pointed, flaring and straight. He asserts that pointed lugs to
be found in every level whereas the flaring lugs appear later than straight profiled lugs.
Pointed lugs with double perforations cease with Level V. The only animal head handles
at the site are known from Level V (Last 1996: 118). Basket handles were found on the
systematic surface collection and are assigned to Levels VI-V (Last 1996: Fig. 9.5.6;
Yalman and Özdöl 2003: 92).
Vessels with necks are encountered only with Level III while unrestricted vessel shapes
increase rapidly in Level II. In the same level, pierced lug handles are replaced with
ledge handles while with Level II disc bases and tubular lugs appear in the assemblage.
Mellaart (1967: 217) also mentions red-on-cream painted examples from these young
levels. In the upper levels (III-I), bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles appear and everted rims
become more common. Incisions are also recorded very rarely on pottery from V-III
Figure 6.21: Typical hole mouth and open shapes that are associated with “dark mineral standard wares” of Çatalhöyük VII-IV (modified after Özdöl 2008b: Çiz. 1, 2).
318
(Last 1996: 115-118). Base forms observed from the surface collected pottery are simple
flat, oval flat, carinated flat and ring bases (Last 1996: Fig. 9.5). Ring and carinated flat
bases are apparently late features of pottery that becomes common only with Level III
(Yalman and Özdöl 2003: Fig. 56).
In summary, parallel to Özdöl’s (2008a and 2008b) and Last’s (1996 and 2005)
observations, one can distinguish three developmental stages in the fabrics and
morphology at Çatalhöyük East. The earliest horizon is defined by organic tempered
light colored porous coarse pottery with squat shapes and deep bowls. Second stage is
dominated by fine dark colored burnished wares with hole-mouth shapes and pierced
horizontal lugs. The last stage witnesses increase in lighter surface colors and finer
pottery. Red slipped pottery is a trait of this latest stage. Hole-mouth forms do continue
but existence of ‘s’-shaped profiles, ring bases, tubular lugs and occasional decoration
speak for a much more developed and varied pottery production in the very late
occupational levels at Çatalhöyük East.
4. Çatalhöyük West
The mound is located to the west of Çatalhöyük East and on the opposite side of the old
Çarşamba River Bed. It is about 7.5 meter high and has a diameter of 400 m. The
material from mound’s surface has already been preliminarily published by Mellaart and
the painted pottery was dated to “Early Chalcolithic” (1961b). In the same year as the
publication, he made two soundings on different parts of the mound which recovered
open areas, floor deposits, and a badly-preserved rectilinear house with buttresses which
Mellaart compares to Can Hasan 2B architecture (Mellaart 1965: 135-136). The current
project conducts excavations on the West Mound which revealed, in addition to a Late
Roman-Early Byzantine cemetery, EC domestic architecture which was however heavily
disturbed by younger deposits (Biehl et al. 2006). It has also been suggested, based on
new AMS determinations from East and West mounds, that there was either no interval
between the occupation of East and West mounds or there was little time lapse between
two occupations (Cessford 2005: 95). Two absolute dates from West Mound provided
combined result of 7024±37 BP, beginning centuries of 6th millennium BCE (Cessford
2005: Fig. 4.10).
The pottery from the site was initially classified as Mellaart “EC I Ware” and “EC II
Ware”, the former referring to red-on-cream painted pottery compared to Mersin pre-
Halaf painted wares, the latter to “dark on light painted wares” that display brown or
319
black paint on white surface and distinctive decorative patterns. The second one is
compared to “Can Hasan 2B” wares, which according to French belonged to the
transitional phase from Early to Middle Chalcolithic (French 1963: 37). As this stage is
beyond the chronological framework of this study, below we will only concentrate on
the pottery from the older EC pottery.
“EC I ware” is basically buff or red pasted,
fine, mineral tempered, well fired fabric that
is cream to orange colored, burnished and
painted in red to light brown colors. The
decoration is as Mellaart describes it
“linear”. Continuous “Z” motif on the neck
of the jars and horizontal zig-zags, wavy
lines, lozenges or simple horizontal lines are
seen on the vessel body (Fig. 6.22). Bowls
are decorated with similar designs and some
contain decoration on the inner surface with
concentric circles or zig-zags. In some cases, the empty areas between “Z”s were filled
with dots (Mellaart 1965: 136-137). Among the pottery that was recovered from these
deposits were also fine monochrome examples, Fine Cream Burnished Ware and coarse
wares, which are called “Coarse Red Ware”, “Coarse Buff Ware” and simply as cooking
pots (Mellaart 1965: 151).
The predominate vessel forms that appear on painted vessels are globular jars with
vertical and everted necks, necked jars with carination, bowls with convex profiles
shallow bowls with flaring profiles, bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and bowls with
carination which might have knobs on carination and pedestal bases (Mellaart 1965:
Figs. 2-5; 11; Last 1996). Basket handles and anti-splash rims are also encountered on
painted and monochrome vessels. The “cooking pots” with deep globular bodies and
crescent shaped lugs reminds Çatalhöyük East examples. Additionally, there are incised
square shaped footed vessels which make us recall the “offering tables”.
5. Can Hasan
Can Hasan is a 5 m high mound located 13 km northeast of Konya-Karaman on a fertile
plain which is situated around 1000 m above sea level. The site is to south of the Central
Plateau, closer to the northern slopes of Taurus Ranges, not far from the Göksu Valley
Figure 6.22: A selection of typical “EC I Ware” forms from Çatal West (modified after Mellaart 1965: Figs. 3, 4, 5; Mellaart 1961: Fig. 13)
320
which leads a way to the littoral Mediterranean. The site was probably discovered by
Kökten and visited during the 1958 survey of British Archaeological Institute
archaeologists including David French who began excavations in 1961 with the intention
to establish links with Mersin’s Halaf sequence and complete the sequence of Konya
Plain (French 1962: 27-29). In fact, the reason why Can Hasan was chosen to be
excavated was related to a one Halaf-type bodysherd and polychrome rimsherd found
during surface survey on the site (French 1962: 29). The research on the mound lasted
seven seasons, ended in 1967.
Seven occupational levels were identified by the extensive excavations on the site.
Surface layer included material from Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman and early Byzantine
periods (French 1998: 59). The prehistoric layers are dated on the basis of ceramic
analogies established with Mersin and Çatalhöyük East-West Mounds:
Layer I Late Chalcolithic
Layer 2A Middle Chalcolithic
Layer 2B Transition Early/Middle Chalcolithic
Layer 3 Early Chalcolithic
Layer 4-7 Late Neolithic
Below we will concentrate on the data obtained from Levels 2B, 3 and 4-7 as they
constitute the only comparative material for Ulucak. The natural soil on the site was not
reached due to the ground water (French 1998: 20).
The earliest levels at the site were excavated in 1966 through a deep sounding which
revealed a mudbrick building with at least four floor deposits. There are indications that
the walls of this building were red plastered (French 1967: 175-176). In the following
year, French excavated rectilinear mudbrick houses without stone foundations and
storage facilities from Levels 4-5. Some of these houses contained red plaster. He points
out that the mudbrick walls are remarkably thinner than the younger periods at the site
and mudbricks were not mould-made (French 1968: 51-52; French 1998: 20).
Level 3 was likewise excavated in a limited area. Houses from this level are seemingly
not free-standing, rectilinear in plan with thick mudbrick walls and wall plasters. Walls
of earlier phases were used as supporting elements for the houses of this occupation.
French (1968: 47) indicates clear similarities in settlement plan and architecture to the
subsequent Layer 2B.
321
Level 2B on the mound, excavated extensively, is characterized by rectangular mudbrick
buildings with thick walls and extensive use of inner buttresses that are sometimes
preserved up to 2.5 m (French 1966: 117). The houses are arranged tightly but do not
share party walls (French 1963: Fig. 1). The settlement layout and architectural
techniques clearly remind us Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 as well as Aktopraklık.
Six radiocarbon dates are available from Can Hasan 2B which, when combined, provide
a time range between 5715-5635 cal. BCE at one sigma value. Absolute dates from
Levels 7-3 are not available. One carbon determination from Level 2A (P-789: 6980±79
BP) is interpreted as being too old (Thissen 2002: 326-327).
Ceramics
Detailed descriptions of the fabrics and forms are not available in the Can Hasan
preliminary reports but the final publication provides key information on the pottery
from Levels 7-4. The pottery excavated from the earliest levels is basically what French
calls Dark-Face Burnished Ware. These are mineral tempered (rarely chaff) fine wares
with burnished surfaces. The fractures are black; while surfaces can be black, dark red,
dark reddish brown or “chocolate” brown colored. Burnishing is well-made. “Black-
Brown-Red Burnished Ware” and “Dark Red Burnished Ware” are also assigned to
Levels 7-4 which however lack clear stratigraphical contexts. The former is associated
with crescent-lugs and ledge rims while the latter is characterized by its high quality
(French 2005: 16-17).
Figure 6.23: Major hole-mouth forms from Can Hasan Levels 7-4 (modified after French 2005: Figs. 37, 39 and 41)
322
The typical shapes are hole-mouth jars, bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and jars with
short necks (French 1967: Fig. 6; French 1968: 52; French 2005: 16; Fig. 6.23).
Carinated bowls are associated with dark red burnished and black-brown-red burnished
wares. A crescent shaped lug is seen on an ‘s’-shaped profiled bowl (French 1968: Fig.
5). Rims are simple or everted to sharply everted and bases are flat or disc bases. It is
understood that the painted pottery was not produced at this stage however a number of
sherds with impressed/incised zig-zag decoration were found (French 2005: 17).
Pottery from Level 3 is low in numbers compared to the younger phases. Two fabrics are
distinguished: “Fine burnished ware” and “patterned ware”. Patterned wares are painted
with two distinct styles. French (1968: 48) describes these techniques as follows: “Red
or brown paint on a natural clay ground, often burnished while the paint was still wet,
producing a blurred effect; bright red paint on a thick white slip.” Bowls with
carination, shallow plates, simple bowls, jars with short necks and one squat bowls with
flaring sides are found in the assemblage (French 1968: Fig. 2). It is noted that most
forms from Layer 3 continue into Layer 2B.
Pottery from Layer 2B is mainly painted, although incised and plain burnished wares are
also present in the assemblage. Three types of painted wares are found in this layer.
These are labeled as “red patterned”, “red/black matt patterned” and “brown/black
patterned” wares which have various sub-variations. Plain burnished wares such as
“buff/grey”, “brown/red” and “brown/buff” wares are also encountered in this
assemblage. These might be burnished or decorated (French 2005: 15). The decorations
are confined to zig-zags, vertical lines, net motif, “Z” motif and dots. The incised wares
are filled with white substance. Plain burnished wares are mostly red or brown slipped
(French 1962: 32; French 1967: 173). The pottery from this layer is divided into three
developmental stages by French who asserts that dark-on-light wares appear only with
the last stage whereas cream-on-red linear painted wares dominate the early
developmental phases together with plain burnished wares (French 1966: 118). In layer
2B, large sized vessels seem to be associated with painted wares (French 1962: 32). Jars
with everted necks and globular bodies, bowls with pronounced carination, jars with
anti-splash rims are commonly found in the assemblage.
323
6. Pottery Sequence of the Region and Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya Plain is one of the best and problem-oriented
researched areas as far as the Anatolian prehistory is concerned. The temporal range of
the sites allows us to reconstruct the pottery sequence from the beginning of the 7th
millennium BCE into the late stages of EC. In this respect, this region is unique and
provides firm reference points for the whole Anatolian prehistory.
The early portion of the sequence is very well-documented at Çatalhöyük East with
corresponding comparable material from Süberde and Erbaba. It is understood that
Çatalhöyük XII-XI pottery is together with Süberde III are among the earliest examples,
not only in the entire region, but also throughout the Southwest Asia dating to 7000-
6900 cal. BCE (Last 2005: 127). These are manufactured in low numbers and were fired
in low temperatures. The walls are extremely thick, reaching 2 cm, paste is heavily
organic tempered. The colors of these wares are mainly cream and orange, red wash is
attested on some of the examples. The surfaces are lightly burnished. There is virtually
not much morphological variation. The vessels are simple and have cornered (squat)
shapes which are mainly interpreted as imitation of wooden vessels. Despite their
“primitive” appearances these wares cannot be the earliest production of pottery but yet
earlier examples eludes us.
The following stage is characterized by dark colored burnished wares which are
basically fine monochrome wares with rather dark surface colors and mineral temper.
The contrast to the previous stage is clear in terms of the improvement in the
manufacturing as well as firing techniques. These wares appear with Çatalhöyük VIII
and display an increase in Level VII which is dated to 6600 cal. BCE. It is indicated that
dark burnished wares continue to be produced until the end of the settlement on the East
Mound. Thin-gritty ware and Shell tempered ware of Erbaba are obviously equivalent of
dark burnished wares, only in the latter gastropod fragments are available in the natural
clay. At least, some of Can Hasan’s Dark Face Burnished Ware of Levels 7-4 may
correspond to the same ceramic group. Forms from Erbaba and Çatalhöyük are again
fairly limited in range. The most typical vessel shape associated with this ware is the
hole-mouth vessels which can appear as jars or bowls. Jars with short necks and deep
bowls with slight ‘s’-shaped profiles begin to appear in the second stage as well. Small
pierced lugs are likewise observed on this ware.
324
Above described stage is named as “Middle Tradition” by Özdöl (2008b) which will be
mentioned in several discussions in the following text and is highly important for
reconstructing Anatolian Neolithic ceramic sequence. Özdöl’s “Middle Tradition” as
defined through Çatalhöyük VII-IV and Erbaba III-II ceramics find good parallels in
Mersin XXIX-XXVIII, Amuq A2 and Tell el-Kerkh 2b on the one hand, and in
Northwest Anatolian sequences such as basal Menteşe, Demircihöyük Ware A and B
and Archaic Fikirtepe on the other. Although contemporary sites exist in Lake District
(such as basal Bademağacı and Höyücek) these sites are devoid of typical dark colored
burnished wares. Last points out that Kuruçay 13, Höyücek ESP and basal Bademağacı
may well correspond to Çatalhöyük VI-V, especially when considered that certain lug
and handle types at those sites do not appear at Çatalhöyük before level VI (Last 2005:
138).
The third ceramic stage is represented by Çatalhöyük III-0 where a clear tendency of
light colored pottery production is recognized. These are monochrome fine wares with
predominantly red-orange slip and burnishing. Although the dark colored burnished
wares persist, quantity of fine light colored pottery increases. Furthermore, some new
morphological traits are detected in the assemblage such as vessels with ‘s’-shaped
profiles, tubular lugs, basket handles, ledge handles, oval bases, ring and disc bases.
Çatalhöyük East sequence ends here but Can Hasan 4-7 can be considered as a
continuation of this stage. As mentioned above, Can Hasan 4-7 pottery is fine,
monochrome and well-burnished with surfaces that are mainly red, brown and black.
The forms are mainly hole-mouth but open vessels with ‘s’-shaped profiles and carinated
forms are found in the assemblage as well. Crescent shaped lugs, similar to the ones seen
on “cooking pots” from Çatal West (Mellaart 1965: Fig. 11), are also found. These early
layers from Can Hasan, which are unfortunately excavated in a very small area, can be
representing a parallel stage to Çatalhöyük I-0 and probably a little later. French placed
Can Hasan 7 to a timeline that immediately succeeds Çatalhöyük 0 (French 1967: Chart
2). Since not much is known about the nature of Çatalhöyük 0, we should limit ourselves
to indicate that Can Hasan 7-4 might be representing the very late phase of LN in the
region, although some of the forms attributed to Can Hasan 7-4 by French clearly EC in
date. Especially developed carinated bowls and cooking pots with ledge handles on rim
are typical EC shapes.
325
The following stages of pottery sequence should be sought in Çatalhöyük West and Can
Hasan 3-2. The research conducted on Çatal West has failed to demonstrate that LN
occupation exists on the mound. The current picture indicates a clear break between
Çatalhöyük 0 and Çatal West. Çatal West red-on-cream pottery with its “linear” designs
and sharply carinated forms, pedestal bases and incised pot stands reminds us Hacılar I
and Kuruçay 7 horizons from the Lake District which indicates that even the early Çatal
West horizon, the “EC-I Ware”, represents an advanced phase of EC.
Pottery from Can Hasan 3 (French 1968: Fig. 2) seems likewise chronologically closer to
Çatal West, Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 than Hacılar V-II, e.g. early EC. The hole-mouth
forms from the earlier deposits are not found in the assemblage anymore. Painted wares
are as common as monochrome wares. The bowls with small knobs on the carination
(French 1968: Fig. 2) have clear parallels in Hacılar I.
The following occupation at Can Hasan, 2B, is in terms of pottery a developed phase of
the Level 3. The big jars with everted necks, vessels with anti-splash rims and bowls
with carination reflect a gradual development in the morphology. The gradual transition
from red-on-cream to dark-on-light pottery is detected solely in this phase in the entire
region. The dark-on-light painted wares are new in this level and find their close parallel
in Mellaart’s “Çatal West EC-II Ware” which both archaeologists link to Mersin’s pre-
Halaf phases (French 1967: Chart 2; Mellaart 1965: 155). White-filled incised and
impressed vessels were also found in this level.
Dark-on-light painted pottery from Can Hasan 2B is indeed at first sight similar to
certain Halaf fine painted wares, especially the net motif combined with triangles, is a
well-known Halaf motif (see Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Pls. 94-96). Moreover, the sharp
carinated bowls are also typically found at Early Halaf sites (such as at Sabi Abyad 7-
6/7; see Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Pls.100-101). The nature of the organic relations between
these two regions however is not archaeologically demonstrable for the time being. The
Halaf-style painted sherd from the surface collection at Can Hasan remains isolated until
today.
The similarity of architectural techniques between Can Hasan 2B and Hacılar I and
Kuruçay 7 is hard to oversee and support an argumentation for complete or partial
contemporaneity. Schoop (2005a: 147) suggests that Can Hasan 2B and Çatal West I-II
326
should be contemporary with each other, and also with Mersin XXIV-XX, whereas clear
parallels between these littoral and inland regions lack before this period.
A comparison of Neolithic pottery sequences of Central-West Anatolia and Konya Plain
is not straightforward as it might have seemed. From our above account it becomes clear
that some major developmental stages in the pottery are not represented at all in Central-
West Anatolia. These are the first two stages we described from Çatalhöyük East that are
characterized by cream organic tempered ware and mineral tempered dark burnished
ware. It should be mentioned however earliest deposits excavated at Ulucak (Vb-f) have
produced increasing amounts of mineral tempered dark (dark brown) colored and
burnished wares typically associated with hole-mouth jars, which might well be a
parallel reflection of dark mineral wares of Central Anatolia. In terms of absolute
chronology, Ulucak Vb-f is roughly contemporary with Çatalhöyük VI-IV which
coincides with the Central Anatolian “Middle Tradition” defined by Özdöl (2008b). As
mentioned above, this horizon is characterized by mineral tempered dark colored
burnished pottery and hole-mouth jars. Current data from Ulucak’s early deposits fits
perfectly with the “Middle Tradition” both in terms of absolute chronology and ceramic
assemblage. On the other hand, Ulucak Vc-f also includes fine cream burnished ware
which is different from dark colored burnished wares and not as fine as cream burnished
ware. Fine cream burnished wares may be similar to Hacılar IX-VIII examples. It is
possible that both Lake District and Central Anatolia ceramic traditions influenced
Ulucak ceramic tradition. Further research will aim to clarify this issue in the coming
years.
Çatalhöyük II-0 and Can Hasan 7-4 horizons with light colored fine burnished pottery,
red slips, disc bases and tubular lugs can be linked to Ulucak V-IV and the general LN-
EC stage of Central-West Anatolia. Certain important forms, especially carinated bowls
are lacking at Ulucak and other Central-West Anatolian sites. The following evidence
from Konya Plain, Çatal West and Can Hasan 3-2B, is again archaeologically absent in
Central-West Anatolia where, as we have seen before, Hacılar I type of pottery, whether
painted or not, is not detected. Same goes true for Çatal West II and Can Hasan 2B
Wares.
In Konya Plain, however, the sequence from LN into the EC eludes us which is partially
represented at Ulucak IV. As a result, the only common horizon in both regions is
confined to LN. In this sense, it is unfortunate that especially pottery from this period
327
was not satisfactorily published from Çatalhöyük and Can Hasan. Nevertheless, there are
some common and deviating traits concerning the red slipped wares that need to be
mentioned from both regions. First of all, in both regions red slipped wares constitute the
fine wares. Both in Central-West Anatolia and Konya Plain they follow wares with
darker surface colors and increase through time gradually. At Ulucak, the brown
burnished wares of Level Vb might be corresponding to the very late phase of second
developmental stage in which “dark burnished wares” of Central Plateau are attested. In
both regions, there is a tendency to produce light colored fine burnished pottery in
oxidized firing conditions in the beginning of 6th millennium BCE. This stage
corresponds to Çatalhöyük East’s II-0, Çatal West Early and to Can Hasan 7-4. In
Central-West Anatolia RSBW clearly dominate the assemblages with 80-90% whereas
in Konya Plain dark burnished wares, including black examples from Can Hasan 7-4,
continue to be produced. On Çatal West, surface collection showed that 20-30% of
pottery had red wash (Last 1996: Tab. 9.11).
In Central-West Anatolia, RSBW is accompanied by impressed wares which completely
lacks in the Central Plateau.
Another distinction between the two regions is the
type of non-plastic inclusions in the paste. At
Ulucak, Level V wares, whether red slipped or
brown burnished, have mineral inclusions in the
clay whereas with Level IV chaff is increasingly
preferred by the potters. In Konya Plain, except for
the earliest pottery from Çatalhöyük XII-XI and
Süberde III, organic temper is not attested at all.
Only in Erbaba, pottery with shell inclusions has been detected, but this is a feature of
the local clay. In terms of fabrics, we can pinpoint as common traits the growing
tendency to produce fine light colored pottery and wares with red slip and burnish in
both regions.
In terms of vessel morphology, hole-mouth jars, bowls with convex profiles and bowls
with ‘s’-shaped profiles are common to both regions and this repertoire is found at
Çatalhöyük East II-0 and Can Hasan 7-4 (Fig. 6.24). These forms are also encountered
on Çatal West Ware I. Moreover, the jars with short necks and jars with everted necks
find their parallels in Ulucak IV. The main difference that makes us suggest that Çatal
Figure 6.24: A deep bowl with slight “S” profile and crescent shaped lug from Can Hasan 5 (after French 1968: Fig. 5)
328
West (horizon related to “Ware I”) is inhabited later than Ulucak IV is the presence of
carinated forms and anti-splash rims. Carinated forms are also already seen in Can Hasan
7-4, therefore it is possible that Can Hasan 7-4 is later than Çatalhöyük 0. Otherwise, the
vessel forms from Çatal West contain clear continuations from the latest Çatal East (Last
1996: 152).
In terms of lugs, except for the appearance of tubular lugs in Çatalhöyük East II,
similarities are rare. The pierced knobs of Ulucak IV-V are very well comparable to
straight and flaring profiled pierced knobs of Çatalhöyük East V-0 (see Last 1996: Fig.
9.5.3 and 9.5.5). Ledge handles, double pierced knobs, and crescent shaped handles are
not found in Central-West Anatolia. Basket handles from Çatal West, also a known trait
of Lake District, is not known so far in the Central-West Anatolia.
The base types however show some certain similarities. The disc bases, associated with
late levels on Çatal East, are found in Ulucak V-IV in considerable amounts. Ring bases
are found in both regions, but in Central-West Anatolia rather rare. One oval base
depicted on Last (1996: Fig. 9.5.14) has parallels in the entire Central-West Anatolia as
well as in the Lake District.
Lack of detailed ceramic reports from Çatalhöyük II-0 and Can Hasan 7-4 limits the
depth of our comparative analysis. In any case, it is clear from the available information
that basic form morphology in LN of both regions is fairly similar. Certain lug and
handle shapes seem to be differing, however. As a result, one cannot detect numerous
parallels between Central-West Anatolia and Konya Plain as we have done for the Lake
District. Apparently the geographical distance resulted in fewer social-cultural contacts
played a role in the deviating development of the ceramic assemblages in both regions.
However the common trends in both fabrics and morphology may be indicating social-
cultural bonds provided through the filter of Inner-West Anatolia and the Lake District
communities. Ongoing excavations on Çatal West have the potential to fill the temporal
gap between the East and West mounds. It can also reveal the missing comparative
material between Konya Plain and Central-West Anatolia. For now, Ulucak IV seems to
be falling exactly into this gap while Ulucak Va-b might be contemporary with late Çatal
East (II-0) if we take tubular lugs as a chronological trait. The increase of light colored
burnished pottery is detected with Çatal VI-V but such wares become clearly visible in
the Çatalhöyük assemblage only with Level III. Therefore, Ulucak V, with its 40% of
329
RSBW, cannot pre-date this transition but might be reflecting a similar trend in the
pottery production techniques.
Carinated forms of Çatal West and Can Hasan 7-4 and 3 on the other hand might post-
date Ulucak IV, but as mentioned before when we compared Hacılar with Ulucak,
absence of carinated bowls at Ulucak might be a reflection of local pottery production as
certain EC forms such as jars with vertical-everted necks, necked jars with small vertical
handles on rim and jars with horizontal knobs below rim are encountered frequently at
Ulucak IVb, which is dated to 5900-5700 cal. BCE. This might indicate that Ulucak IV
is chronologically compatible with Çatal West and Can Hasan 7-4.
G. Melendiz and Bor Plains (Aksaray and Niğde Regions)
Few Lower and Middle Paleolithic find spots are known in the area, which are usually
located in close proximity to the obsidian sources (Harmankaya and Tanındı 1996).
Exploitation of rich obsidian sources in the region has been proven by the evidence from
“Kaletepe Deresi 3” deposits which are currently excavated by a French-Turkish joint
team. These deposits contain 12 levels which are associated with Lower to Middle
Paleolithic cultures with regards to the lithic technology which is characterized by
bifacial hand-axes and cleavers as well as Levallois elements (Slimak et al. 2007: 9-10).
The obsidian sources in the area have been extensively used during and after the
Neolithic period, too. One of the workshop sites, Kaletepe located on the northern slopes
of Göllü Dağ, is excavated in 1997-2001 by a joint team directed by Nur Balkan-Atlı of
Istanbul University Prehistory Department. The reconstruction of the operation chain at
Kaletepe showed high standardization in the production of blades from bipolar and
prismatic blade cores with pressure-flaking technique. Interestingly, these techniques are
not attested at the PPN sites in this region, but rather in PPNB Levant. Balkan-Atlı and
Binder questions the possible existence of mobile groups with a Levant origin who are
craft-specialists operating as part of a highly-developed and well-organized long-
distance exchange mechanism, reaching 900 km in distance from the source, which
covered the entire Levant, Southeast Anatolia, Northern Syria, and Cyprus, where Göllü
Dağ obsidian has been attested (Balkan-Atlı 2007: 220; Binder 2002: 80).
Melendiz Valley is one of the few areas in Central Anatolia where permanent settlements
without any use of pottery have been documented (Todd 1980) and subsequently
excavated (Esin and Harmankaya 2007; Özbaşaran et al. 2007). Aşıklı and Musular,
330
covering a period from 8400-6600 cal. BCE, are well-documented sites which were
subject to extensive horizontal excavations which provided substantial information on
the settlement organization, architectural techniques, subsistence strategies and material
culture of PPN sites. Moreover, pollen record from Acıgöl provides reliable information
on the vegetation and the landscape from terminal Pleistocene to Early Holocene, which
basically indicates a transition from an arid steppe vegetation to grassland-woodland
vegetation caused by the increasing humidity (Woldring 2002: 63). With the appearance
of grassland-woodland vegetation in the region around 10860-8600 BP, one sees the first
permanent settlements. Especially Aşıklı, with its agglutinative clustered mud-slab
architecture pre-echoes Çatalhöyük. The subsistence strategy at the site is based on
consumption of cultivated cereals and pulses as well as of wild caprines and aurochs
(Asouti and Fairbairn 2002: Tab. 1; Martin et al. 2002: 196-197).
Another interesting feature which has been common to Aşıklı and Musular is the
buildings with red painted lime floors (for details see Özbaşaran 2003). Such floors,
mainly associated with ritual practices, are known from a good number of PPN sites in
Southeast Anatolia, Levant, Iran and Northern Syria (Garfinkel 1987: 69). Recently
Baird (2007: 296) has identified similar floor constructions at Pınarbaşı Areas A and D
which are dated to 9th millennium cal. BCE. We may also add here that red painted lime
floors have been found in Western Anatolia, at Bademağacı ENI-8, Hoca Çeşme Level 7
and Ulucak VIa, indicating that the geographical distribution of this practice was much
broader than it was supposed until recently.
1. Musular
Musular is a small shallow mound located in Kızılkaya Village of province Aksaray-
Gülağaç which is a region characterized by volcanic landscapes. To the south of the area
four volcanic massifs, Melendiz Dağı, Keçiboydoran, Küçük Hasan Dağı and Hasan
Dağı, all above 2500 m, are located. Immediately to the northwest of the site Salt Lake is
situated. Prehistorically exploited local obsidian sources like Göllü Dağ, Nenezi, Kayırlı
and Kömürcü are likewise within reach of one day walk. The settlement is inside a fertile
valley on the west bank of River Melendiz on an altitude of 1120 m above sea level. The
cultural accumulation on the site is confined to 0.7 m, covering an area of 220 x 120 m
and situated right above the bedrock which is volcanic tuff. Its discovery was made in
1993 by M.K. Davis as the excavations were under way at Aşıklı, a major PPN mound,
only 400 m distanced from Musular (Özbaşaran 1999). Material from Musular was
331
collected by S. Gülçur during her extensive surveys in the region. Excavations on the site
were carried out between 1996-2004 under the direction of Mihriban Özbaşaran of
Istanbul University Prehistory Department.
Two distinct inhabitations have been detected on the site: Aceramic and Ceramic
Neolithic. To a lesser extent, EBA and medieval pottery was also present in the surface
collection (Özbaşaran et al. 2007: 279).
Aceramic occupation is confined to a rectilinear building with red plastered floor
(Building A), stone channels carved into the bedrock, midden areas and building “Z”
which is likewise carved into the bedrock and made out of stones. In addition, eight
burials have been excavated from this level (Özbaşaran 2000b: 137). The excavators
suggest that the whole site should have been associated with meat and leather processing
as well as feasting activities after hunting. The lithic and osteological evidence support
this hypothesis. Moreover, absence of domestic residential units indicates that the site
did not function as a settlement (Duru and Özbaşaran 2005: 23; Özbaşaran et al. 2007:
277-8).
Ceramic Neolithic deposits from the site are unfortunately highly damaged due to their
erosional exposure. Stone foundations of a building with multi-rooms have been
nevertheless excavated from this level. The foundations indicate that this building has
two small square rooms, one elongated room and another bigger room. The one meter
thickness of the wall foundations might be indicating presence of a second storey
(Özbaşaran 2000a: 49). Other features from the site include pits, a workshop area and
open areas. Carefully made circular stone constructions are interpreted as silo bases
(Özbaşaran et al. 2007: 278-9).
Nine carbon dates are available from PPN deposits which fall between 7600-7000/6600
cal. BCE (Duru and Özbaşaran 2005: 26). No carbon dates are measured from the PN
occupation.
Ceramics
Ceramics from the upper occupational level are of great interest to us as they contain
substantial amounts of RSBW. Unfortunately the preservation of the vessels is very low.
Only three complete profiles could have been recovered from the site (Özbaşaran 2000b:
131).
332
The entire pottery assemblage from this level contains large amounts of organic non-
plastic inclusions (chaff) which was added to two local clay compositions used for
ceramic production. These are characterized by clays with feldspar, alkali and mica on
the one hand and clays with volcanic originated minerals. Mottling and sooting are
observed frequently.
Four different wares have been distinguished from this level. These are red slipped wares
with pinkish buff paste, red slipped wares with brownish-red paste, dark colored wares
and buff (light brown) colored wares. Red slipped wares, both varieties together, make
up around 70% of the entire ceramic assemblage. The slip is rather streaky in the pinkish
buff variety while in the second type the slip is thicker and adheres well to the body.
Both types are burnished, however the second red slipped variety is reported to be much
better burnished than the first one. Dark burnished wares constitute around 15% of the
assemblage. The distinctive trait of this fabric is its surface colors which mainly range
from grey, brownish grey to black. The vessels are lightly burnished. Finally the buff
colored wares, 17% of the assemblage, are as the name implies buff or light brown
colored with lightly burnished or smoothed surfaces (Özbaşaran 1999: 151; Özbaşaran et
al. 2007 279-280).
In terms of vessel shapes, deep bowls with straight and ‘s’-shaped profiles constitute
more than 50% of the assemblage. Beakers with ‘s’-shaped profiles, jars with short
necks and globular bodies, shallow plates with straight sides, large jars with everted
rims, bowls with flaring sides and hemi-spherical simple bowls are also seen in the
assemblage to a lesser extent (Fig. 6.25; Özbaşaran et al. 2007). Cooking pots, especially
Figure 6.25: Various vessel shapes found at Musular (after Özbaşaran 2000b: Fig. 17)
333
with small lug handles on rim, are associated with dark colored wares (Özbaşaran 2000a:
49; also see Özbaşaran et al. 2007: Fig. 29). Flattened rims are very commonly found in
the assemblage. Two pieces contained painted decoration, but the surfaces are very
worn-out, impeding better identification (Özbaşaran 2000b: 132; Özbaşaran 2000b: Fig.
12).
2. Tepecik-Çiftlik
The mound is located 1 km East of town Çiftlik in the Niğde province. Geographically it
is situated in the Melendiz plain formed by the volcanic silt and surrounded by volcanic
mountains. Göllü Dağ, a major obsidian source, is located immediately to the east of the
mound (Todd 1980: 114). The site was discovered during the extensive surveys by I.
Todd in 1966 who initially dated the pottery and lithics collected from the site as
“Neolithic.” S. Omura also collected material from the site in 1990. Large-scale
excavations started in 2000 by a team from Istanbul University Prehistory Department
supervised by Erhan Bıçakçı.
The mound is partially damaged by the modern agricultural activity. It is oval shaped
and 4-9 m above the present plain level. The surface finds that belong to the mound
cover an area of 6 ha (Bıçakçı et al. 2007: 237).
Four occupational levels have been identified so far on the mound. These are Late
Roman-Byzantine (Level 1), Middle Chalcolithic (Level 2), Early Chalcolithic (Level 3)
and Neolithic (Levels 4 and 5).
Early Chalcolithic houses are rectangular with 2-6 rows of massive stone foundations.
Superstructures are constructed from mud-slabs as no mud-brick has been detected in the
collapsed deposits of houses. The buildings are either single-roomed or multi-roomed,
mostly with inner partitions and leveling. Clay silos and platforms were also excavated.
Some buildings were added new rooms and additions through time. A number of
primary and secondary burials have been identified from this level (Bıçakçı et al. 2007:
239).
In an area which served as an open activity area in Level 3, below these remains, a 0.8
cm thick light yellow colored sterile deposit, called Level 4, with sixteen burials were
found. To the same occupational level belong heavily damaged remains of stone
foundations and plastered floors of houses as well as obsidian knapping areas and caches
(Bıçakçı et al. 2008: 487-488). Burnt wooden beams were also excavated in one of the
334
houses from this level. A skeleton of a baby inside a ceramic vessel was found on a
plastered floor in association with a fire installation. Yet an older level was met in a
small-size deep sounding which revealed burnt remains of an oven and hearth as well as
a fill deposit that contained ash and charcoal (Bıçakçı et al. 2007: 240-241).
The most distinctive material cultural elements from the site are pressure-flaked bifacial
obsidian points, idols made out of knuckle bones (phalanx), bone polishers, polished
axes and a stamp with concentric circles (Bıçakçı et al. 2007; 2008: 488).
Ceramics
Pottery from Levels 4-5 is classified into three major groups. These are “Mottled
Wares”, “Dark Colored-Black Burnished Wares” and “Red Slipped and Relief Decorated
Wares”. It is suggested that the black burnished wares have been fired in a reducing
atmosphere. In the assemblage there are also black burnished wares with mineral
inclusions which are according to the excavators non-locally produced (Bıçakçı et al.
2007: 242). All of the groups contain fine organic non-plastic inclusions. RSBW from
this phase have surface colors that range from brownish orange to dark red. Godon
considers red slipped wares found in Level 5 contexts as intrusion from Level 3 (Godon
2005: 94). The surfaces are smoothed or lightly burnished. One typical feature related to
red slipped wares is the relief decoration, mostly zig-zag or hanging garlands, either
applied to the surface or created by wiping. One impressed piece on black burnished
ware is illustrated on Bıçakçı et al. 2007: Fig. 44c. The impressions are shallow very thin
horizontally applied curving lines that seemingly applied with a shell.
The common forms are jars with bead-rims, hole-mouth jars, bowls with convex
profiles, shallow bowls with straight sides and jars with vertical necks. One interesting
trait of the ceramics from Levels 4-5 is the total absence of handles and lugs, although
few fragments of basket handles have been found in Level 4 (Bıçakçı et al. 2008: 487).
Bead-rims are frequently observed on vessels necks (Bıçakçı et al. 2007: Figs. 42-46).
335
In the following younger Level 3, there are remarkable changes in the fabrics and
morphology. The amount of organic temper in the paste increases considerably.
Especially big sized jars are produced with high amounts of organic temper. In relation
to the increase in the amount of organic non-plastics the surfaces become more porous
(Bıçakçı et al. 2007: 242). The RSBW as well as black burnished wares persist well into
this level. In terms of morphology, carinated forms and big sized jars appear for the first
time in this level (Godon 2005: 95). Secondly, the plastic decoration applied to the
surface of red slipped wares become highly elaborate and detailed, depicting scenes from
the daily life (Fig. 6.26). Both anthropomorphic and theriomorphic applications are
observed. Especially cattle are depicted on jars with necks. Animal shaped handles and
flaring bowls with high pedestal bases are likewise encountered in Level 3 (Bıçakçı et al.
2007: 243; Figs. 30-41).
3. Köşk Höyük
3.1. General Overview of the Archaeological Research
Köşk Höyük is a mound located on a natural hill on Bor Plain, close to town Bahçeli in
Niğde province. Bor Plain is located to the South of volcanic massifs Hasan Dağı and
Melendiz and Northwest of Aladağ and Bolkar Mountains, on 1100 m above sea level
(Todd 1980: 41). The hill is 15 m above the present level of the plain and mound covers
an area of 100 x 90 m. Natural springs are located in the close vicinity of the site which
were even exploited during the Roman period. The mound was discovered already in
Figure 6.26: Relief decorated jars from Tepecik-Çiftlik Level 3 (modified after Bıçakçı et al. 2007: Fig. 35)
336
1964 by R. Harper and M. Ramsden. Material from the site was also collected and
published by Todd (1980). First excavations have been carried out between 1983-1990
by Uğur Silistreli. Current research is directed by Aliye Öztan of Ankara University
since 1995 (Öztan 2007: 223).
Five levels that are dated to “Neolithic” (Levels V-II) and “Early Chalcolithic” (Level I)
have been identified through the excavations on the site. Additionally, late Iron Age, late
Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Medieval and modern remains have also been detected.
Level V is the oldest occupational stratum that is founded on the bedrock. “Early
Chalcolithic” occupation is abandoned after a fire incident not to be settled again until
the Iron Age (Öztan 2007: 223-224). Few Ubaid-type pottery and Halaf type seals were
also recovered from Levels III-I (Özkan 2001), which together with a carbon date from
Level I that yielded 4883±120 cal. BCE, indicate that the latest occupation on the mound
continued well into the early 5th millennium BCE. Newton and Kuniholm (2002) took
nine dendro dates from a single tree from Level I which provided a time span from 5100-
4700 cal. BCE for Köşk Höyük Level I (see also Thissen 2002: 308; 324).
Good comparisons for these seals, apart from Halaf sites in East Anatolia, come also
from Hacılar II-I which Mellaart called “pseudo-stamp seals” (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 187).
This indicates that the transition from Early to Middle Chalcolithic might have been
represented on the site, similar to the Can Hasan 2B-A levels. According to Schoop’s
relative and absolute chronological comparisons, pottery from Levels III-I are more
related to Can Hasan 2A and Güvercinkayası than true “Early Chalcolithic” assemblages
from Can Hasan 3and Çatal West (Schoop 2005a: 133-134).
The architecture from Levels V-II is characterized by rectilinear-square houses built with
limestones and mortar. The walls and floors are plastered, rarely in white or orange
colors. A wall painting from Level III, which depicted a hunting scene with 20
individuals and one deer-like animal was also discovered (Öztan 2007: 225). There are
few cases in Levels III-IV, where mudbrick houses were also encountered. Houses are
clustered around open areas, multi-roomed structures with evidence of continuous re-
arrangement of the plan. Silos, benches and hearths are as a rule found inside the houses.
Level V houses are built of mould-made mudbricks and midden areas carved into the
bedrock are considered typical for this level houses (Öztan 2007: 225).
337
One of the most distinctive traits of this settlement is the existence of plastered-modeled
skulls in the houses, of which 16 are excavated so far. These belong to individuals of
various age and sex whose skulls were removed after the initial burial which is always
accompanied by gifts. Moreover, burials belong to infants and children are also found
inside the houses and under the benches (Öztan 2007: 225-226).
3.2. Ceramics
The ceramics from the youngest level, Level I, are recovered on the mound surface that
contained monochrome wares and red-on-cream and brown-on-cream painted wares
which are compared to “Can Hasan 2B Wares” (Öztan 2002: 59). Two “Ubaid type
painted pottery” were also recovered from this phase (Özkan 2001: 19). Finally, Silistreli
mentions polychrome painted pottery, on light background brown and black painted,
from the same level (Silistreli 1985: 32).
Pottery from the earlier levels, II-IV, is homogeneous, monochrome and mineral
tempered. Öztan (2007) distinguishes between two main groups. First one is grit
tempered, gray-brown-buff colored, dark colored cored and streaky red slipped and
sometimes lightly burnished wares. The second group is finer, mica-sand tempered
black, red, brown slipped and well-burnished. Both wares can appear with relief, paint
and incised decorations, but their numbers are in all levels low. It is reported that 20% of
pottery from Köşk Höyük II-III is decorated. Incised and white filled incisions, usually
spirals and pseudo-meanders, make up 3% of decorated wares (Öztan and Özkan 2003:
447). Painted decorations are usually applied on red surface with yellowish-white and
cream tones. Decorations are confined to spirals, single bands and “V”s. One ware group
associated with the Levels V-IV are gray-buff colored, self-slipped and mineral
tempered (grit and lime) wares which are low fired and have dark colored cores (Öztan
2007: 227).
There is high variety of vessels from Köşk Höyük. Big sized jars, vases, bowls, deep
bowls, plates, “fruitstands”, boxes, beakers and small cups are encountered in the
assemblage. Fine RSBW are mainly associated with middle-small sized jars, bowls and
boxes. Jar with long vertical neck with globular body is a very common vessel shape.
These have deep grooves where necks and bodies juncture. Bead-rims and carination are
also frequently observed on bowls. Flat as well as disc bases are found on vessels. In
Levels III-II anthropomorphic and theriomorphic vessels are found.
338
One special treatment of red slipped vessels is with plastic decorations which display a
rich repertoire of motifs and scenes. These vessels are found both in burial and normal
domestic contexts. Similar to the specimens excavated at Tepecik-Çiftlik, hunting scenes
with bow and arrow, anthropomorphic figures and cattle are depicted. One example with
man harvesting wheat and another with cow milking scene are significant as they
provide us first-hand snapshots from the daily life of Köşk Höyük community. Some of
the relied decorated vessels are also painted with white. On one example, the skirt of the
man and his head are white painted. On another, horns of a deer are white painted as if to
emphasize its impressive size (Öztan 2007: Figs. 13-18).
3.3. Relative Dating of Köşk Höyük
The earliest pottery from the site is brown-buff colored and unburnished with mineral
inclusions. The following levels are dominated by fine and coarse varieties of RSBW.
Relief decoration with painting is peculiar to the site. Forms include carination and jars
with funnel necks. There are some forms and decoration types that speak for a rather late
date for Köşk Höyük’s “Neolithic” levels. These are carinated forms, jars with long
funnel necks, white-on-red paint, anthropomorphic vessels, theriomorphic vessels,
fruitstands and incised decoration with white filling. These features are not associated
with LN assemblages, neither in Konya Plain nor in Lake District. Carinated forms
appear at Hacılar only with Level V and at Kuruçay with 11-7 whereas on Konya Plain
they are encountered at Çatal West, Erbaba I-II and Can Hasan 3-2, not before. Jar with
necks, especially long vertical necks like the ones from Köşk Höyük, are mainly
associated with the very late stages of LN (Çatalhöyük II-0) and EC (Çatal West).
Figure 6.27: 1. Incised bowl from Gelveri (after Esin 1993: Abb. 11) 2. White-on-red painted jar from Köşk Höyük III (after Öztan 2007: Res. 14) 3-4: Wihte-on-red painted sherds from Galabnik (Lichardus-Itten 1993. Abb. 7) 5-6: White-on-red painted sherds from Kovačevo (Lichardus-Itten 1993: Abb. 7)
339
White-on-red painted decorations, usually associated with EN cultures of Southeast
Europe, are very rarely found in Anatolia. Only examples are known from Hacılar I,
Bademağacı “LN-EC” and Höyücek “Sanctuaries Phase”, all are settlements that date to
the advanced stages of “Early Chalcolithic”. At Hoca Çeşme Phase II, in southern tip of
Thrace, white-on-red painted pottery was also found (Özdoğan 1993: 448). The spiral-
like motif executed on white-on-red painted bowl from Köşk Höyük III is similar to the
incised motifs seen on other Köşk Höyük II-IV vessels (Öztan and Özkan 2003).
Moreover, the Gelveri bowls and Tepecik-Çiftlik 2 (Bıçakçı 2007: Fig. 31) which are
compared to Gumelnitsa and Precucuteni Cultures of Southeast Europe (Esin 1993: Figs.
3-4) are also comparable to Köşk Höyük incised vessels with spiral-like curving motifs
(Fig. 6.27). But the real white-on-red comparisons with the same style of spirals are
known from advanced EN stages from Southeast Europe like Karanovo I and Early
Starčevo from sites such as Gâlâbnik and Kovačevo (Gimbutas 1991; Lichardus-Itten
1993: Abb. 4). These traits are indeed categorized as “Weiss/Spiraloid” by Schubert
who assigns these to “Proto-Starčevo” and “Classic Starčevo” cultural horizons which
are dated to ca. 5900-5800 cal. BCE (Schubert 1999: Taf. 68). Such a comparison might
sound far-fetched at first sight, but when one considers the major material cultural
similarities between the Anatolia and Southeast Europe from LN into the Late
Chalcolithic, it is not that surprising at all to find analogous fabrics and decoration types
in both areas. Köşk Höyük indeed a very good example for testing the extent of
“Anatolian-Balkan Cultural Complex” once proposed by Childe (1956) and Esin (1993).
Anthropomorphic vessels are known again from Hacılar I and Ulucak IVb, both EC
settlements, former being later. Theriomorphic vessels are known from Hacılar VI, IV
and Kuruçay 11, e.g. late LN and EC. Finally, the ever-present incised pottery with
white filling from Köşk Höyük is a trait of Can Hasan 2B-2A.
On the other hand, some typical features of LN assemblages such as open shapes with
‘s’-shaped profiles, hole-mouth jars and tubular lugs are not found in the Köşk Höyük
assemblage, apparently not even in the oldest Level V. These indicate in any case a date
after Çatalhöyük 0, where these traits are well represented (Last 1996). As already
mentioned above, the “Halaf-type” seals found in Levels 3-1 also betray their dating,
which is at least towards the end of EC period.
As a result, the earliest Level V with its monochrome pottery might be representing the
last stages of LN, although some typical morphological features are absent at Köşk
340
Höyük however this might be a result of the few published specimens from this level so
far. The upper levels (III-II) should be placed into the EC on typological and decorative
grounds. Level I with its “Can Hasan 2B-A” pottery and Ubaid-type painted wares and
polychrome sherds is clearly later than EC, and should be set somewhere between Can
Hasan 2A and Güvercinkayası as the single carbon date indicates the same (Schoop
2005a: 134).
4. Chronological Sequence of the Region and Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
In comparison to the long pottery sequence that is observed in Konya Plain, the sequence
in Melendiz-Bor Plains is fairly restricted. Even the oldest available assemblages from
Musular, Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük are post-dating Çatalhöyük II-0. In other
words, none of these assemblages can be placed safely into the LN. On the contrary,
some major traits find their best parallels in the EC ceramics from Çatal West and Can
Hasan III. Here it should be emphasized that even the monochrome assemblages from
Musular, Tepecik-Çiftlik 3 and Köşk Höyük due to their morphological attributes should
be placed closer to EC period than LN. At all three sites, the earliest monochrome wares
are either red slipped and burnished or black burnished which clearly correspond with
the RSBW horizon of LN whereas dark mineral wares similar to Çatalhöyük VII-IV is
completely missing in Melendiz-Bor Plains. Morphologically, existence of jars with
necks at all these three sites from the earliest levels onwards is an indication of later date
as such jars develop only at the end of the LN period at Çatalhöyük where the
morphological developments can be easily followed.
The dark colored and buff colored wares from Musular with ledge handles on the rim are
reminiscent of Çatal West “cooking pots”, Can Hasan 7-4 and Yarıkkaya-Plateau vessels
(Fig. 6.28). The sooting marks and untreated surfaces of these wares might indeed be
indicating their function as cooking pots. On the other hand, near-absence of painted
wares from Musular might be pointing towards its chronological position immediately
preceding the appearance of painted wares. What is however striking about the pottery
from this site is the absence of crescent shaped lugs and carination (known from Çatal
West) and tubular lugs (known from Çatalhöyük II-0). Whether this is a local preference
or a result of the poor preservation of these levels is not clear for the moment. Looking at
these characteristics we can tentatively place Musular between Çatal 0 and Çatal West
Early, perhaps contemporary with Can Hasan 7-4.
341
There are also clues in the architecture that one might contrast to the Konya Plain sites,
e.g. the cell-like divisions inside the houses excavated both at Tepecik-Çiftlik 3 and
Musular (see Bıçakçı et al. 2007: Fig. 4 and Özbaşaran et al. 2007: Fig. 24).
Interestingly cell-like divisions in the houses is also found at Mezraa-Teleilat IIB2,
which is, in ceramic terms, associated with the impressed pottery and early RSBW,
preceding the pre-Halaf painted wares (Özdoğan 2007a). It seems possible to establish
connections among these sites based on the architectural plan of the houses. Origins of
this house plan cannot be traced back in the preceding stages of Konya Plain at all.
At Tepecik-Çiftlik, Levels 4-5, might be corresponding to a similar stage as Musular, as
here too monochrome pottery prevails, tubular lugs are absent, necked jars are already in
use and carination is not found. Hole-mouth jars, simple jars with bead-rims and bowls
with convex profiles fit well into the advanced stages of LN. Bead-rim is an interesting
feature that appears first at Hacılar VIII, then again in Hacılar IV and at Ulucak IVb and
Agio Gala in very low numbers. On these comparisons, it becomes clear that bead-rims
appear in the LN and continue into the EC. However bead-rims are very frequently
encountered both in the Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük (V-II) assemblages and might
be a characteristic of Bor Plain. The undeveloped nature of relief decorations from
Tepecik-Çiftlik 4-5 is important in terms of dating these levels before Köşk Höyük III-II.
Interestingly, handles and lugs are again missing from the entire Tepecik-Çiftlik
assemblage, although few fragments of basket handles were found in the levels 4-5.
Basket handles are known from Çatal East VIII-0, Çatal West, Bademağacı ENII and
Hacılar IX, therefore a trait that is found during LN and EC alike. Tepecik-Çiftlik 5
Figure 6.28: 1. Vessels with ledge handles on rim. 1: Musular (after Özbaşaran 2000b: Fig. 17) 2: Çatal West (after Mellaart 1965: Fig. 11) 3-4: Yarıkkaya-Plateau (after Schoop 2005: Taf. 25) 5: Can Hasan 7-4 (after French 2005: Fig. 41)
342
might therefore be belonging to Can Hasan 7-4 horizon where fine monochrome well
burnished wares with red, black and “chocolate brown” surfaces were excavated (French
1968: 52). The vessel shapes from both sites are also well-comparable except the
existence of crescent shaped lugs from Can Hasan 7-4.
The direct follower of this horizon is characterized by fine RSBW with developed relief
technique that might or might not be white painted. Tepecik-Çiftlik 3 and Köşk Höyük
III-II deposits belong to this phase which is, as we have argued above, without doubt, EC
in date. The dating of Öztan (2007) these phases to “Neolithic” cannot be justified based
on ceramic as well as other material cultural comparisons (such as seals). The developed
relief decoration finds no exact parallels anywhere in Anatolia and is best interpreted as
a locally developed pottery decoration technique. The relief decoration from Hacılar,
Kuruçay or Ulucak is in no way comparable to the high standard and elaboration of the
examples from Tepecik-Çiftlik 3 and Köşk Höyük III-II. The only comparison comes
known to the author comes from Ege Gübre where a naturalistic steatopygous woman
figure is applied to the red slipped jar, but again this is a unique instance.
The appearance of incised decorated pottery in Köşk Höyük III and Tepecik-Çiftlik 2 is
another indication for their post-Neolithic date. Incisions are commonly found in this
region at Can Hasan 3-2B assemblages. The white-on-red painted bowl with spiral-like
motif and the anthropomorphic vessels from Köşk Höyük III are probably the best
evidence for dating this level to the EC. Indeed, Bıçakçı et al. (2007: 238) compares
Tepecik-Çiftlik Level 2 pottery to Gelveri assemblage with Furchenstich motifs, which
is dated to 6000-5800 BCE by Schoop who argues that Furchenstich technique is well-
known from Ilıpınar VIII and Yarımburgaz 4, the spirals from Hacılar II while the
Gelveri vessel shapes are reminiscent of Kuruçay 11-8 (Schoop 2005a: 228).
If we put the relative chronological concerns to aside for a moment, it will become clear
Melendiz-Bor Plains display strong local characteristics, especially morphologically, that
are clearly distinguished from what we presented from Lake District and Konya Plain.
The developed phase of the relief decoration from Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük are
obvious reflections of a technique locally developed and preferred. Bead-rim is another
typical morphological feature of pottery in this region. On the other hand, well-known
characteristics of Konya Plain EC pottery such as cream-on-red paint, anti-splash rims or
crescent shaped lugs are not matched in Melendiz-Bor region. This is not to say however
there are no relations among these regions. On the contrary, in terms of fabrics (RSBW
343
and black burnished ware) and basic vessel shapes (hole-mouth jars, jars with vertical
necks, bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles) clear parallels are detected. But again, one needs
to acknowledge the high level of local input in terms of ceramic production.
Musular, Tepecik Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük earliest assemblages might be dated to the gap
between Çatal 0 and Çatal West, maybe contemporary with Can Hasan 7-4. If there is no
gap between Köşk Höyük V-IV and III-II, then “Çatal West Ware I” is not represented
in Niğde Region. Instead, as mentioned above, monochrome wares with plastic
applications are produced here. Nevertheless, as Schoop indicates (2005a: 134) various
painted sherds in Can Hasan 2A style, seals of Halaf-type, white filled incised vessels
and white-on-red painted sherds disclose the date of these assemblages.
A comparison in the light of this sequence with Central-West Anatolia has to ignore the
above described late stage from Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk Höyük, as it is out of the
chronological scope of this study. Besides, this stage is not represented at Ulucak which
ends in the very early stages of EC period. This leaves us with Musular, Tepecik-Çiftlik
5-4 and Köşk Höyük V-IV horizon which we compared to Can Hasan 7-4 that is a period
that can only be contemporary with Ulucak IV.
The high quantity of RSBW from Melendiz-Bor and Central-West Anatolian sites
should not be ignored as a significant common trait. RSBW can be followed here as one
dominant stage in Melendiz-Bor sites which is not really surprising. The increase in the
organic inclusions at Tepecik-Çiftlik and use of organic temper at Musular is
fascinatingly matched at Ulucak IV and Yeşilova Late, where chaff as temper commonly
preferred. The differing fabrics are as important as common traits too. Black burnished
wares and buff wares are not found in the Central-West Anatolian ceramic assemblages.
This might well be a reflection of the dating of especially Tepecik-Çiftik and Köşk
Höyük, as black burnished ware might be dating to a period not represented at Ulucak. It
is known that black burnished wares are present at Can Hasan 7-4 which we dated to a
period after Çatalhöyük 0. It is highly likely that such wares from Melendiz-Bor sites
correspond to the same stage, if not later. On the other hand, impressed wares and
CSBW, in contrast to Central-West Anatolia, seem to be absent from the region. One
impressed sherd from Tepecik-Çiftlik level 5 is not made in the “Central-West Anatolian
style” but is more reminiscent of Mezraa Teleilat IIB2 examples. The relief decoration
from Tepecik-Çiftlik 5-4 and Ulucak IV-V is stylistically not comparable, although some
344
of the relief decoration made with wiping from both sites with zig-zag shapes can be
mentioned here as matching comparison.
Basic vessel shapes like vessels with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with convex profiles, jars
with hole-mouths and jars with vertical necks that again allow us to establish links
between both regions that are not directly connected to each other. There are also other
features like flattened rims from Musular or bead-rims from Tepecik-Çiftlik and Köşk
Höyük that find their parallels at Central-West Anatolian sites. Especially the presence
of flattened rims at Musular is surprising as such rims are absent in Konya Plain and
Lake District and very typical for Central-West Anatolian sites.
Another point which we would like to raise here is about the other material cultural
elements. As mentioned above, the seals from Köşk Höyük are stylistically and
chronologically not matched at Central-West Anatolia, however the clay stamp with
concentric circles from Tepecik-Çiftlik 5 is perfectly matched at Bademağacı ENII-3,
Ulucak IVb and Dedecik-Heybelitepe. In my opinion, this is a very good archaeological
parallel between these sites in terms of relative dating. We have already outlined that the
oldest level from Tepecik-Çiftlik, in the light of ceramic comparisons, might well be
contemporary with Ulucak IV. Our suggestion seems to have been supported by the very
presence of this object whose occurrence can be traced from northern Syria (Tell Halula)
to mainland Greece (Sesklo) (Lichter 2005: Fig. 4). This on the one hand strengthens our
already mentioned architectural connection to Southeast Anatolia, as apparently the
common traits are not restricted to architectural techniques. Secondly, it also provides us
with additional archaeological evidence with western part of Anatolia. Especially the
“Tepecik-Çiftlik 5- Bademağacı “EN3”- Ulucak IVb” connection is significant in terms
of relative dating, which implies, not necessarily strict contemporaneity, but a more or
less similar horizon for all these settlements.
Second type of object we would like to discuss here is the pressure-flaked obsidian
points. Bıçakçı et al. (2007: 249) emphasize the fact that these objects are found in LN
as well as EC assemblages. At Tepecik-Çiftlik, Levels 5-3, yielded many examples of
such points. Similarly, at Köşk Höyük, pressure-flaked points are found in Levels IV-I,
and reflect a clear continuation in the manufacturing techniques in these levels (Erek in
Öztan 2007: 231-232). As discussed above, ceramic comparisons with Konya Plain and
Central-West Anatolia show that Tepecik-Çiftlik 5-4 and Köşk Höyük V-IV belong to
the end of LN while the following levels at both sites penetrate well into the EC. Now
345
what we would like to bring up here is the absence of sling stones at both settlements in
both stages which sets a clear contrast to Central-West Anatolian sites where sling shots
constitute the only weapon and points are extremely rare. Özdoğan indicates that in
Southeast Anatolia arrowheads are associated with the DFBW Horizon while sling
missiles replace them in the upper stage which corresponds to the appearance of red
slipped wares and early painted pottery in ceramic terms (Özdoğan 2002a: 438). The
disappearance of arrowheads and appearance of sling stones is a phenomenon that can be
observed only at Mezraa-Teleilat in Urfa. At Ulucak, for instance, sling stones are found
even in the early deposits (such as Vf, ca. 6400 cal. BCE) and continue to be used in
large amounts until the abandonment of the settlement. In Lake District, Hacılar VI, is a
good example for extensive sling missile use. Prior to this level, e.g. in Hacılar IX-VII,
no sling stones were found (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2005: 7). Similarly, at Çatalhöyük the
earliest sling missiles are known from Level VIB (Mellaart 1967: 217). However, at
Çatalhöyük, projectile points are encountered from XII to II where later levels are
characterized by large tanged points and earlier by small sized points (Conolly 1999: 75;
Graph 6.5). This means there is no clear-cut transition from points to sling missiles at
this site. The reason we are giving this detailed account is to demonstrate that sling
stones are not used as weapon instead of arrowheads Anatolia-wide in LN-EC. Melendiz
and Bor Plains are, for some reason, out of this trend where communities continue to
produce arrowheads both during the LN and EC. The existence of arrowheads at these
sites is not necessarily an indication of their early dates, this is a local cultural preference
which avoided using sling missiles as weapons while their neighboring regions
apparently adapted this strategy. Proximity of these sites to the obsidian sources and the
deep rooted tradition of pressure-flaked production of points might have been the
reasons why obsidian points persist into the later stages of EC. Existence of such points
even in Köşk Höyük I (Özkan 2007: Fig. 22b) indicates that even in the transition to
Middle Chalcolithic the tradition persisted in the region. Schoop (2005a: 134) underlines
the fact that at Mersin these objects are produced until Level XX and only with Halaf
levels at the site points disappear. Hence, on one hand, we can emphasize the absence of
arrowhead-sling shot transition in Melendiz-Bor Region. On the other hand, we can
contrast rest of Anatolia (even mainland Greece and Bulgaria) with Melendiz-Bor Plains.
In this respect, pressure-flaked points lose their chronological value when it comes to
comparing communities who have differing preferences in terms of hunting-defensive
346
devices. There are obviously geographical niches where arrowheads continued to be
produced well into the EC.
H. Porsuk-Sakarya Basin (Eskişehir- Kütahya Region)
Porsuk-Sakarya Basin during the pre-Neolithic and Neolithic period is scantily known.
No excavations focusing on the Neolithic period have been conducted in the region. PPN
occupation of the area has been suggested by Efe who drawing on the lithic evidence
from Keçiçayırı and Asarkaya which seem to contain typical PPN elements similar to
that of Aşıklı and Musular, even Göbeklitepe (Efe 2005: 111-112). Salvage excavations
began at Keçiçayırı in 2007 promises to reveal more on the possible presence of PPN
stratum in the region (Şahin 2008). Özdoğan also considers these as pre-pottery sites
together with Çalca and Musluçeşme in the Marmara Region, having macro-blade
industries without ceramics (Özdoğan 2000: 167). Such implications have to be tested
with extensive excavations. What we know about Neolithic cultures in the region relies
on Demircihöyük excavations and extensive surveys of Turan Efe which will be covered
below in detail.
1. Demircihöyük
Demircihöyük is located on an alluvial plain, 25 km west of Eskişehir and southwest of
town Çukurhisar in Northwestern Anatolia. Accumulations above the plain are dated to
EBA which revealed 16 cultural layers. Pottery from earlier periods, Neolithic and
Chalcolithic, has been discovered in the collapsed debris of EBA. Seeher (1987: 13)
suggests that pre-bronze age material discovered here was not transported from another
settlement but belonged to an earlier settlement on the Demircihöyük mound.
At Demircihöyük small scale excavations by K. Bittel took place in 1937. Systematic
excavations have been carried out by M. Korfmann between 1975-1978. Pottery of
Neolithic and Chalcolithic ages have been analyzed and published in a detailed report by
J. Seeher (1987).
Seeher distinguished seven ware groups belonging to pre-EBA era. These are named as
Ware A-G. Ware groups F and G are dated to Late Chalcolithic and are thus out of the
interest of this study. We will provide a summary of wares A-F since these are
essentially dated to “Neolithic” period (Seeher 1987: 18-22; Fig. 6.29).
347
Ware A (Schiefer Ware) is defined by big sized mica schist temper which can be
observed in the paste as a flat layer. The paste is gray, gray-brown or gray-beige. Ware A
carry frequently red or dark red slip and the surface is smoothed or lightly burnished.
Only 44 examples have been assigned to this ware. The most frequently appearing form
is hole-mouth jars, flat squat bases and lids. Seeher compares Ware A with its thick
walls and squat forms chronologically with Çatalhöyük XII-IX pottery (Seeher 1987:
46).
Ware B (Glimmer Ware) is characterized by the high amount of mica particles and small
grits in the paste. The surface is burnished but mica shine is more obvious than the
burnishing. There is no slip and the outer surface is mainly light brown, gray-beige and
in olive-tones. 473 sherds were assigned to this ware group. Hole-mouth jars, bowls with
‘s’-shaped profiles and Fikirtepe boxes are associated with this ware. It is suggested that
Glimmer Ware is same with DFBW of Mersin XXXII-XXVII and Çatalhöyük VIII
(Seeher 1987: 48). Seeher also asserts that Ware B and C are related to each other and jar
types that are seen with Ware B are also known from Fikirtepe pottery assemblage.
However Ware B is seen only on hole-mouth jars and this is the reason why Seeher
places Ware B chronologically somewhere between Çatalhöyük and Hacılar (Seeher
1987: 49).
Figure 6.29: Relation of vessel forms to wares from Demircihöyük (after Seeher 1987: Abb. 3)
348
416 sherds are defined under the name Ware C, also known as “Fikirtepe Ware”, which
is a lime tempered, dark colored and burnished ware. Surface colors range from dark
brown to beige, but the dark colored examples are predominant. As the name implies
Ware C is associated with Fikirtepe Culture of Northwest Turkey. Ware C appears on
hole-mouth jars, jars with short necks, bowls with convex profiles, bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles and Fikirtepe boxes.
Ware D (Rotbemalteware) is red-on-cream painted ware which is compared to Hacılar
EC painted wares on stylistic and morphological grounds (Seeher 1987: 51). This group
is mineral tempered and slipped with beige or gray-beige colors while the paint can be
reddish brown or brown colored. The vessels were burnished after the paint. The
characteristic form associated with Ware D is the bowl with ‘s’-shaped profile.
Ware E (Steingrusware) is defined through its quartz temper. It is not slipped but
burnished with surface colors from dark brown to light brown. Ware E constitutes the
majority of the Neolithic wares with 7231 sherds. All the vessel forms identified for pre-
Bronze Age Demircihöyük can be found on Ware E. Mostly they are seen on bowls with
‘s’-shaped profiles and jars with short necks. Ware E can appear from late Çatalhöyük
into the entire Hacılar sequence. Therefore, it is hard to date this ware group more
precisely. The forms, such as ‘s’-shaped profiles, indicate a date from LN into EC
(Seeher 1987: 52-53).
Concerning the decoration, Ware D, Ware B, C and E showed occasional incised
decoration which shows triangles, step motifs, checkerboard motif and parallel lines.
Plastic decoration is confined to bucrania, which are well-known from Hacılar LN
assemblage. Impressed and pinched sherds have been identified too. Finally painted
examples show linear, zig-zag motifs, concentric “V” shapes and triangles.
In terms of dating of Demircihöyük material there are several interpretations. As we
have mentioned, Seeher does not think that Wares A-E were contemporaneous. On the
contrary, he sees a continuous development from A to E, covering a period from
Çatalhöyük XII-IX to Hacılar EC, in other words, almost 1000 years. It is hard to argue
for such an early date for Demircihöyük Ware A. The description of the ware does not
correspond to Mellaart’s description of earliest Çatalhöyük ceramics which are light
colored, lightly burnished, heavy organic tempered and with two cm thick walls. It is
true that squat shapes are found in the earliest Çatalhöyük pottery but they also appear in
349
Hacılar I assemblage. Besides the Ware A lids illustrated by Seeher (1987: Pl. 1) are one
of the characteristic features of Fikirtepe Culture. These coarse red slipped examples
might belong to Classic Fikirtepe phase as red slipped wares increase in this phase
(Özdoğan 1999a: 213). Finally, pottery of 8th millennium BCE has not been found in
West Turkey at all. Consequently, Seeher’s very early dating of Ware A cannot be
verified.
Özdoğan (1997: 21) initially dates Demircihöyük Wares A-E to “developed Fikirtepe
phase” which is characterized by Ilıpınar VIII and Yarımburgaz 4 assemblages. He
suggests that “Steingrusware” has to represent a later phase of the Fikirtepe culture as
the meander and curving incised decoration, associated with this ware, appear late in the
sequence (Özdoğan 1989: 203). Recently he has proposed that various ware groups of
Demircihöyük material encompasses all three phases of Fikirtepe Culture which covers a
period of 500 years (Özdoğan 2007b: 412). Schoop (2005a: Beilage 1) dates
Demircihöyük material to the beginning of 6th millennium BCE, contemporary with
Fikirtepe-Pendik material and Ilıpınar X-VIII. Schoop’s (2005a: 295-296) main
argument is the homogeneity of the Demircihöyük wares and forms, which show various
strong correlations to Fikirtepe Culture assemblages such as the hole-mouth jars, boxes,
incised decorations and lids. The painted examples are also an indication of a rather late
date, at least for Ware D which is comparable to Hacılar V-II tradition.
As a result, the small spectrum of vessel forms from Demircihöyük Wares A-E indicates
a relative short time span of the material. All of the forms from the site are well-known
from the Fikirtepe Culture as defined by Özdoğan (1997; 1999a). Especially hole-mouth
jars and bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles are well-defined vessel shapes of West Anatolian
LN-EC. In my opinion, total absence of necked jars is meaningful as to the pre-
Yarımburgaz 4 dating of Demircihöyük material. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, the so-
called “boxes” and lids are well-known forms of Fikirtepe Archaic-Classic phases. The
impressed and pinched sherds are also interesting in terms of dating because at Ulucak
they appear only in Levels IV and at Va, but not earlier. This implies that Demircihöyük
material may not go far back into the early stages of LN. The linear-geometric motifs on
the painted pottery from Demircihöyük have parallels in Hacılar V. However most of
these decorative shapes are found at Hacılar from V-I. The negative painted eye-drop
motif on one rimsherd from Demircihöyük (Seeher 1987: Taf. 8.16) is matched at
Hacılar IIA-B (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 113). The hanging garlands are found from Level V to
350
Level I at Hacılar. It is however important to underline the fact that developed and
composite forms of Hacılar I have not been detected at Demircihöyük. Moreover,
carination is also absent on bowls. As mentioned above, jars with funnel necks are
likewise absent in the assemblage. Demircihöyük assemblage stems from a time when
necks on jars, carinated forms and composite forms were not developed. Therefore,
when compared to Hacılar, it seems more probable that Demircihöyük dates to the end of
7th millennium BCE, perhaps to the transition from LN into EC.
2. General Overview of the Sites Surveyed
Turan Efe’s surveys (1989-1990; 1991; 1995) in Porsuk Valley in provinces Bilecik,
Eskişehir and Kütahya recorded a number of prehistoric settlements, which include
possible Neolithic ones. Among them Fındık Kayabaşı (Eskişehir) and Akmakça
(Kütahya), both flat settlements, provide ceramic material that is well comparable to the
ceramic assemblage from Ulucak and other Central-West Anatolian sites. Additionally,
Keçiçayırı, north of Afyon, is another find spot where Efe collected “Neolithic” ceramics
and lithics (Efe 2005: 109-111).
Pottery collected from Fındık Kayabaşı is mainly grit tempered, brown colored,
unslipped and burnished. Forms are restricted to globular hole-mouth jars and bowls
with ‘s’-shaped profiles. Bases are flat or ringed. One fragment belonging to a “Fikirtepe
box” has also been found. Additionally there is one sherd with red paint on cream
colored thick slip from the site. A similar example has also been found at a mound called
Hacıhamza (Efe 1995: 107; Res. 2).
In contrast, Akmakça pottery is mainly slipped and burnished. The wares are mineral
tempered and well fired. The color of the slip is either reddish brown or pinkish red.
Unslipped brown burnished pieces and three red-on-cream sherds have also been
identified. Hole-mouth jars with short necks and ‘s’-shaped forms are commonly found
in the assemblage. Flat bases and vertically placed tubular lugs are also frequent. Rims
are everted, simple or flattened. One basket handle and incised “Fikirtepe box”
fragments are also seen in the Akmakça assemblage (Efe 1995: 108; Res. 3).
Keçiçayırı is yet another mound located on a small plain which is drained by one of
Sakarya River’s tributaries. Apart from Phrygian and Byzantine ceramics, some red
slipped sherds and a Fikirtepe box which, according to Efe similar to Demircihöyük
Ware A, have been collected. Efe (2005: 111) dates these sherds to EN because Ware A
351
is dated to EN by Seeher. Efe (2005: 111) also indicates that the pressure flaked points
and scrapers collected from the surface reflect a PPN technology known from
Göbeklitepe, Aşıklı and Musular. Rescue excavations are conducted at the site since
2006 which revealed three Neolithic layers. The upper two layers contain pottery which
is compared to Çatalhöyük’s Middle Phases (presumably Levels VIII-IV) whereas the
lowest layer is void of ceramics. Initial observations on the lithic assemblage from the
lowest stratum endorsed the PPN character of the tools (Şahin 2008: 25-26).
Forthcoming analysis and excavation results from this site are very important with
respect to the understanding of the early stages of neolithization process in Northwest
Anatolia and its origins.
At first sight, all three sites seem to be contemporary with LN-EC sites of Northwest
Anatolia and Southwest Anatolia. The hole-mouth jars with short necks and tubular lugs
indicate LN occupation at Fındık Kayabaşı and Akmakça. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles are commonly encountered both in LN and EC assemblages of Central-West
Anatolia and Lake District. The illustrated Keçiçayırı pottery by Efe (2005: Fig. 8)
shows parallel features to Akmakça and Fındık Kayabaşı pottery. However absence of
carinated forms in all assemblages, a typical feature of developed EC pottery, might
indicate a pre-EC date for these sites. Fikirtepe boxes, available from all three sites, point
to contemporaneity with “Classic Fikirtepe” phase while red-on-cream painted sherds
from Akmakça are best correlated with EC of Southwest Anatolia. Basket handles are
known from Çatal East VIII-0, Çatal West, Bademağacı “ENII-3”, Tepecik-Çiftlik 4 and
Hacılar IX, thus not really helpful in terms of precise dating. Similar to Demircihöyük
Wares A-E, Akmakça, Keçiçayırı and Fındık Kayabaşı can also be dated circa to the end
of 7th- beginning of 6th millennium cal. BCE. Excavations at Keçiçayırı may reveal
unknown early horizon in the region which may even stretch back to PPN period.
3. Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
Both Demircihöyük and Fındık Kayabaşı-Akmakça-Keçiçayırı assemblages contain
similarities and differences to Central-West Anatolian ceramic assemblages. As
mentioned above, all of these sites bear strong ties to Fikirtepe Culture which we will
discuss in detail below. The incised rectangular vessels (“boxes”), lids, horizontal
handles and certain decoration types are peculiarities of Fikirtepe assemblage.
Nevertheless, in terms of wares and forms one can detect analogies between Porsuk
352
Basin and Central-West Anatolia too. In this section, we will concentrate on these
features.
First of all, it is seen that there are extensive divergences among the ceramic fabrics of
Central-West Anatolia and Porsuk Region. RSBW and CSBW are hardly found at
Demircihöyük. The relation of the coarse red slipped examples with squat forms (Ware
A) from Demircihöyük to Central-West Anatolian fine red slipped wares is uncertain.
Red slipped wares however are present in the Akmakça and Keçiçayırı assemblages and
given that these sites are located further south in Kütahya-Afyon province, it is
meaningful to find RSBW here. At Fındık Kayabaşı however, brown unslipped and
burnished wares have been found which may correspond to Ulucak V brown burnished
wares. Red-on-cream wares are known sporadically from Central-West Anatolia. They
also appear in low numbers at Demircihöyük. Few pieces have been found during Efe’s
surveys at Akmakça and Fındık Kayabaşı. Both regions, Porsuk Valley and Central-
West Anatolia, were outside of the core area where painted pottery was produced in
large numbers. The description of Glimmerware from Demircihöyük is surprisingly very
similar to Mica Glimmer Ware from Ulucak Vb. Mica Glimmer Ware is found in low
numbers but they are an important category in terms of dating as they appear with
Ulucak Level Vb and continue in earlier levels. Similar to Demircihöyük, at Ulucak Vb
too, mica glimmer ware is mostly seen on hole-mouth jars. It is difficult to conclude
however Demircihöyük Ware B (Glimmerware) may be contemporary with Ulucak Vb.
This possibility is not implausible.
Steingrusware is probably a variant of the Fikirtepeware. Vessel shapes associated to
Steingrusware range from bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles to jars with short necks and
footed vessels and bucrania applications. The short necked jars with small vertical
handles on the neck remind us the similar jar forms from Ulucak IVb. Such jars with
handles are most peculiar to Ulucak IVb ceramic assemblage. On the other hand, hole-
mouth jars, again associated with Steingrusware, are a characteristic of Ulucak V,
especially Vb and earlier. The Fikirtepe boxes of Steingrusware show incised
decorations which, according to Özdoğan (1989: 44), display an advanced stage in vessel
decoration similar to Yarımburgaz 4. These observations make us think that
Steingrusware may cover multiple periods from LN to EC. Seeher (1987: 21) sees such a
possibility very plausible.
353
When it comes to the vessel forms, amount of similarities increases between the two
regions. Jars without necks, jars with short necks, bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles (with or
without tubular lugs) and bowls with convex profiles are basic vessel forms in both
regions. In Ulucak V, these four vessel forms constitute almost the entire ceramic
assemblage. The flattened rims found at Demircihöyük and Akmakça (Seeher 1987:
Tafel 1.5; Efe 1995: Resim 3.5) are well-known from Ulucak IV ceramic assemblage
(Fig. 6.30). Tubular lugs on bowl shoulders and bellies are also well attested at Ulucak
Va-b, but also in younger phases too.
Some morphological features are matched at Lake District instead of in Central-West
Anatolia. Anti-splash rims, unknown in Central-West Anatolia, are illustrated by Seeher
(1987: Taf. 1.7; Taf. 5.9). Such rims are found for instance at Bademağacı ENII and
Hacılar VI-IV. Similarly, basket handles are also foreign to Central-West Anatolia but
have been attested at Lake District, Konya Plain and Bor Plain sites. Inner curved rims
with grooves, associated with Demircihöyük Ware A, are not present in Central-West
Anatolian sites. They seem to be very rare in Lake District too. However one rimsherd
from Bademağacı ENI-6 (Fig. 6.30) provides a good comparative example for such rims.
To conclude, despite a number of clear parallels between Central-West Anatolia and
Eskişehir-Kütahya Regions, these parallels seem to be the result of indirect
communications. Porsuk Region is obviously in direct contact with Fikirtepe Culture
area and probably with inner-west Anatolian communities who are closely related to
Lake District. If there was influence from the south, this may have occurred through the
filter of Inner-West Anatolia. Akmakça pottery may be a good example of overlapping
Figure 6.30: 1: Grooved rim from Bademağacı ENI-6 (after Duru 1999: Fig. 42.4); 2-3: Demircihöyük Ware A (after Seeher 1987: Taf. 1.3) 4: Flattened rim from Demircihöyük Ware B (after Seeher 1987: Taf. 1.20) 5: Akmakça (after Efe 1995: Res. 3.5); 6-7: Ulucak IVb
354
spheres of Fikirtepe in the north and Hacılar in the south. As one moves towards the
North, Fikirtepe characteristic are much more intensely represented. At Demircihöyük,
one is probably confronted with pottery from a continuous occupation from LN to EC as
ware and form variability as well as decoration techniques indicate. For a more reliable
chronology excavations are needed in the area.
I. The Eastern Marmara Region (İznik Lake Basin and
İstanbul)
In this section, we will present a general overview of the Eastern Marmara Region
Neolithic sites. These are evaluated under the general name “Fikirtepe Culture” which
has three developmental phases, according to Özdoğan, who defined the culture. These
phases are predominantly defined through the ceramic assemblages from various sites
and are called “Archaic”, “Classic” and “Developed” Fikirtepe phases (Özdoğan 2007b:
411-412).
Before we present and discuss the archaeological evidence from single Fikirtepe sites, it
is useful to provide information on the pre-Neolithic horizon from the region which has
been documented not only at Yarımburgaz Cave but also has been researched, among
others, through a long-term survey project conducted by Özdoğan and his team.
Research undertaken since 1979 in the entire Marmara region documented a good
number of prehistoric sites, some of which were clearly pre-Neolithic in age, ranging
from lower Paleolithic to Mesolithic (Özdoğan 1989; Gatsov and Özdoğan 1994; Howell
et al. 1996; Runnels and Özdoğan 2001). Freshwater status of Black Sea and Marmara
Sea prior to circa 8250 cal. BCE is important in terms of understanding the ecological
conditions of the region (Özdoğan 1998a; see also van Andel and Shackleton 1982).
Lower Paleolithic occupation of the area is best documented at Yarımburgaz Cave where
the deposits contained large amounts of cave bear (Ursus deningeri) bones with stone
tools. The lithic industry is predominated by retouched flake tools industry exploiting
local raw materials like flint, quartz and quartzite using unifacial discoid method for core
production which is compared to Tayacian assemblages of South and East Europe
(Howell et al. 1996: 45). Although absent at Yarımburgaz, bifaces were found in the
Göksu Valley near Ümraniye-Istanbul (Runnels and Özdoğan 2001: Tab. 2). Marmara
Region was extensively inhabited during the Middle Paleolithic as indicated by
numerous find spots concentrated on the Black Sea shore with typical Levallois and
355
Mousterian lithic assemblages. Early Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites, identified
solely through lithic assemblages, are also concentrated on the Black Sea shoreline while
true Upper Paleolithic assemblages are lacking in the region (Runnels and Özdoğan
2001: 85).
Presence of Mesolithic find spots, Ağaçlı being the biggest in size, in the northern part of
the region is significant as to the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene occupation which
almost immediately precedes the arrival of agro-pastoral communities. Gatsov and
Özdoğan (1994: 110) indicate that there is a marked difference between the microlithic
industries of Ağaçlı group, compared to Epi-Gravettian of Bulgaria, and macro-blade
production of Neolithic people known for instance from Karanovo. According to
Özdoğan, presence of a pre-Neolithic micro-blade and prismatic core production in the
region can well be contrasted to the macro-blade production technology brought by the
farmers; indicating existence of mutually exclusive technologies which probably have
different origins (Özdoğan 2007b: 409). However, since the precise dating of Mesolithic
groups in the region can not be assessed currently, this suggestion needs further evidence
to be confirmed.
The Fikirtepe Culture takes its name from the type site located in Kadıköy district of
İstanbul. In addition to the data from Fikirtepe, the various developmental phases of
Fikirtepe culture are defined based on material excavated at sites such as Pendik,
Ilıpınar, Yarımburgaz and Menteşe Höyük. Moreover, other sites in proximity of
Fikirtepe site, such as İçerenköy and Tuzla, are also known to contain pottery analogous
to Fikirtepe pottery (Bittel 1969: 18). Recent salvage excavations in Istanbul (Marmaray
Project) revealed submerged Fikirtepe settlements and burials including cremated bodies
and wooden paddles belonging to canoes.63 An underwater survey conducted in the
region Sinop on Black Sea provided evidence of a possible coastal Neolithic site
inundated following the rise of the sea level around 7500 BP (Ballard et al. 2001: 614).
Both projects demonstrate that good number of sites have been flooded after the possible
sudden infilling of the Black Sea by the oxygenated waters and during the Neolithic
period littoral Black Sea region might well have housed higher population density and
extension than previously thought.
The sites around the İznik Lake, such as Ilıpınar and Menteşe, display various
characteristics in their archaeological assemblages, especially in their architectural 63 This information is provided by Mehmet Özdoğan (03.03.2009).
356
traditions, that are clearly distinguished from Fikirtepe and Pendik in the vicinity of
Istanbul. Below we will evaluate Fikirtepe, Pendik and Yarımburgaz together in order to
provide an overview of the ceramic material from these three important sites which build
up the ceramic sequence of Fikirtepe Culture. Then we will move on to Ilıpınar, Menteşe
Höyük, Barcın Höyük and Aktopraklık in order to present the material cultural sequence
in the İznik Lake Basin. Finally we will compare and contrast these sites with Ulucak
and the Central-West Anatolian ceramic assemblages.
1. Fikirtepe
The site was located, before it was completely destroyed, east of Kadıköy on the
Anatolian side of Istanbul and to the South of Fikirtepe Hill which rise 26 m above sea
level. The hill, today 1.5 km east of the coastline, is located to the southeastern of Stream
Kurbağalıdere which flows into the Marmara Sea using Kalamış Bay (Bittel 1969).
Archaeological remains were discovered in 1908 during the construction of Istanbul-
Baghdad railroad. The material collected from here was brought to Stockholm by T. J.
Arne who published the material in 1922. Later M.O. Janse published Fikirtepe and
Pendik finds in 1925 in a small report. In 1941, K. Bittel relocated the site and
consequently made excavations together with H. Çambel between 1952-1954 (Bittel
1969).
Fikirtepe is a flat settlement with one major occupational layer which is half meter thick
and includes several superimposed pits and fill deposits. The precise nature of the
occupation and site’s stratigraphy has never been fully understood. The architecture from
the site is confined to small circular-oval shaped wattle-and-daub structures
(Flechtwerkhütten) whose remains were found as burnt loam with wood impressions and
scattered stones (Bittel 1969: 6). Bittel makes a distinction between “jüngere” and
“ältere” Fikirtepe phases, the latter characterized by undecorated mineral tempered
pottery (Bittel 1969: 10). According to Özdoğan, Fikirtepe excavations revealed two
settlement levels which belong to “Archaic” and “Classic” phases of Fikirtepe culture.
Typical for the material culture are footed rectangular vessels, bone polishers, bone
spatula, bone hooks, polished axes and prismatic blade cores, micro-burins and scrapers
(Özdoğan 2007b: 411-412). Few animal figurines, sling missiles and bracelet fragments
were also found at the site (Özdoğan 1983: 409).
357
The subsistence is based on cattle and sheep-goat herding while fishing and hunting
contributed significantly to the diet (Boessneck and von den Driesch 1979). A recent
study revealed that the dairy products were extensively consumed by Fikirtepe
inhabitants (Evershed et al. 2008).
2. Pendik
Pendik is located on a coastal alluvial plain in Dolayoba Village of Pendik district in
İstanbul, only 50 m away from the current coastline. Two fresh water sources and one
perennial stream are found in the close vicinity of the mound. It is a shallow mound
(app. 2 m high) which measures 170 x 300 m. Today the site remains in the land owned
by a fabric and a hospital (Özdoğan 1983: 401-402).
Similar to Fikirtepe, Pendik was also discovered in 1908 by Miliopulos who brought the
material to Stockholm National Museum. Arne and Janse published Pendik material in
1922 and 1925 respectively. Railway construction from İstanbul to İzmit has cut the
mound in two halves. Ş.A. Kansu made small scale excavations around the damaged
parts of the mound in 1961.
In 1981, salvage excavations have been conducted at the site due to construction
activities which further damaged the site. Excavations were carried out in the southern
tip of the site under the direction of E. Uzunoğlu and with a team from İstanbul
University Prehistory Department.
The stratigraphy of the site is unfortunately unclear. However on the surface and around
the site Late Roman and Byzantine ceramics and a Byzantine building were observed
(Özdoğan 1983: 402). The Neolithic occupation is confined to one level with several
sub-phases.
During the 1981 excavations two grids were excavated. These yielded in total five
circular-oval shaped pit houses which were 50-70 cm deep and had 3-6 meter diameters.
Between the pit structures were open areas (Özbaşaran, N. 1989: 5).
Bone polishers, bone hooks, bone spatula, endscrapers, drills, blade cores, blades and
geometric micro tools were recovered during the excavations (Özdoğan 1983: Abb. 6,
Abb. 7). Gatsov detected strong parallels at Pendik with Ilıpınar X lithic industry
(Gatsov 2003). Only 5% of the lithic industry was made of obsidian while the rest is
from flint. Interestingly, no grinding-pounding instruments were found which is
358
interpreted by Özdoğan as an indication of a subsistence pattern that is based on herding,
fishing and hunting (Özdoğan 1983: 409).
Özdoğan places Pendik material culture to the Archaic Fikirtepe phase, because the
ceramics material is “almost identical with that of Fikirtepe” (Özdoğan 1983: 405).
3. Yarımburgaz Cave
The cave is located west of İstanbul in Altınşehir of district Küçük Çekmece. The cave is
only 1.5 km north of Lake Küçük Çekmece. The formation of the cave occurred during
the Eocene era which has two connected chambers which are called “Lower” and
“Upper” chambers. Neolithic remains have been excavated only in the Upper Chamber
whereas the Lower Chamber revealed stratigraphy that reaches back to Lower Paleolithic
(Arsebük et al. 1990). Upper Chamber covers an area of 500 m2 and is 9-15 m wide and
up to 10 m high. Roman-Byzantine wall constructions, one Byzantine chapel and burials
have been found in the upper chamber (Özdoğan and Koyunlu 1986: 6).
The cave has been known to various researchers since the 19th century. The first
archaeological sondage is made by Hovasse in 1927. Between 1964-1965, Ş.A. Kansu of
Turkish Historical Society made excavations in the cave. The cave deposits have been
heavily damaged by looters, construction works and other various activities until 1986
(Özdoğan and Koyunlu 1986: 5). In 1986, salvage excavations are carried out for one
season under the direction of M. Özdoğan. Paleolithic deposits from the Middle
Pleistocene in the lower chamber have been excavated by Güven Arsebük of Istanbul
University Prehistory Department in 1988-1990, which revealed a flake-based lithic
technology (Arsebük and Özbaşaran 2000: 5-7).
Fifteen layers have been identified in the upper chamber. These layers cover periods
from Lower to Byzantine era. Of these, Level 5, is the first deposit which contained
ceramics. It has been dated to Neolithic period because of the proto-Sesklo like
impressed sherds found in the deposit which is described as hard and slag-like (Özdoğan
and Koyunlu 1986: 12). The following Levels 4-2 are dated to the various stages of the
Chalcolithic period. It is noted that there is a hiatus between Levels 5-4 due to the nature
of the deposits and Levels 4-3 due to the nature of the ceramics (Özdoğan 1989: 204).
Finally, there is certain ambiguity surrounding the dating of post-Yarımburgaz 4
material culture as well-comparable material can be detected neither in Turkey nor in
Bulgaria. Özdoğan suggests that similar decorative traits of Yarımburgaz 3-2 pottery
359
with Danubian EN cultures (such as Linearbandkeramik) and absence of Yarımburgaz 3-
2 material in Bulgaria may imply that maritime contacts in the Black Sea were
established between Marmara Region and the Lower Danube which by-passed the
Bulgarian mainland (Özdoğan 1999a: 221; Özdoğan 2007: 414). Similar to Özdoğan,
Pavlů also pinpoints some meaningful similarities in ceramic assemblages, especially the
anthropomorphic vessels, between Anatolian and Linearbandkeramik cultures (Pavlů
2003). This is a very interesting topic of great importance which needs to be
systematically investigated in the future. On the other hand, Roodenberg et al. (1989-90:
102-103) compares grooved and rippled decoration, carinated forms and hemi-spherical
bowls from Yarımburgaz 3-2 to Karanovo III and Early Vinča assemblages.
4. The Ceramics of Yarımburgaz Layers 5 and 4
The ceramic material from Yarımburgaz 5 is unfortunately very low in number. Their
analysis revealed four different ware groups in the assemblage. These are Dark
Burnished Ware (38%), Red Burnished Ware (34%), Micaceous Ware (20%) and Gritty
Ware (7%). All of these ware groups are mineral tempered (grit and sand). Impressed
pieces are associated with the coarse looking gritty ware. The nature of the sample does
not enable us to establish typological overview. One jar without neck, two flat bases and
one pierced knob are demonstrated (Özdoğan, Miyake and Özbaşaran-Dede 1991: Fig.
3).
Pottery from Layer 4 is dominated by the micaceous ware which comprises 50% of the
assemblage. Dark burnished and gritty wares are also very common. Low number (only
3%) of lustrous fine burnished ware with brown to light brown surface colors is also
attested in this level. Red burnished ware is extremely rare. Jars with tapering necks and
large globular bodies are very characteristic of this level. Simple bowls, jars with short
necks, flat bases and pierced knobs as well as prismatic footed vessels are also observed
in this assemblage. One of the typical traits of Yarımburgaz 4 pottery is its decoration.
10% of the pottery is decorated which show techniques like incisions, grooving or
impressions. Some were filled with a white substance. Decorative motifs are confined to
parallel lines, dots, zig-zags, lozenges and steps (Özdoğan, Miyake and Özbaşaran-Dede
1991: 70-71).
360
5. Fikirtepe and Pendik Ceramics
The pottery from these sites is described
as grit and sand tempered, burnished,
dark colored and well-fired (Özdoğan
1983: 405). At Pendik, for instance, 50%
of the assemblage is formed by the Grit
Tempered Dark Faced Ware. These
wares are well-fired and have fine
compact pastes which show colors that
range from black, dark brown and red to
rarely buff and reddish brown. The
surfaces are self-slipped and burnished
on both sides. Surface colors are dark
brown, reddish brown, blackish brown
and tones of red. Rarely, buff and cream
colors are observed. The wall thickness
of grit tempered dark colored wares
change between 0.3-1.2 cm (Özbaşaran,
N. 1989: 16-23). Rest of the assemblage
at Pendik is constituted by grit tempered red colored wares, grit tempered light colored
wares, sand tempered ware and organic tempered ware. Apart from grit temper, sand and
mollusks were also attested occasionally in the pastes. It is understood that the grit
tempered dark burnished wares are the most typical pottery group of Fikirtepe Culture.
The characteristic vessel shapes of Fikirtepe Culture are bowls with convex profiles,
bowls and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, jars with short necks, hole-mouth jars
with globular bodies, the so-called “Fikirtepe Boxes” and jar lids (Fig. 6.31). Pierced
knobs and tubular lugs appear in the “Classic Phase” whereas large horizontal lugs are
typical for the Archaic Fikirtepe pottery. In the Archaic phase, most of the typical
Fikirtepe forms, such as the boxes or ‘s’-shaped profiles, do not occur yet. Decoration is
a rare feature of the Archaic phase but shallow incisions and impressions are observed
on a few number of pieces from Fikirtepe (Özdoğan 1983: 405; Özdoğan 2007b: 412).
Figure 6.31: The major ceramic forms from Archaic and Classic Fikirtepe phases (after Özdoğan 1999a: Fig. 5)
361
In the following Classic Fikirtepe phase, open forms with ‘s’-shaped profiles, tubular
lugs, double pierced knobs and oval shapes appear (Figs. 6.31, 6.32). Fikirtepe boxes
increase quantitatively in this phase. Decoration is also more common. The main
technique of decoration is white filled incisions of cross-hatched geometric shapes which
are commonly observed on polypod prismatic vessels. Jet-black burnished wares and red
slipped wares which together make up 10% of the ceramic assemblage make their first
appearances with this phase (Özdoğan 2007b: 413).
The latest phase of Fikirtepe Culture (The Developed Phase) is not present at Fikirtepe
and Pendik but is represented at Yarımburgaz IV and Ilıpınar VIII.
It is important to mention here that Özdoğan links the typical Fikirtepe pottery (dark
colored and burnished) to DFBW horizon of Southeast Anatolia, Central Anatolia and
Bademağacı ENI.64 He asserts that the dark colored burnished ware is a reflection of the
same trend in pottery production throughout Anatolia which preceded the appearance of
RSBW (Özdoğan 2000: 168). The uniformity of the vessel morphology seems to support
this suggestion. The earliest pottery from Ulucak V, which is increasingly dark colored,
does also present a compatible picture which fits nicely with Özdoğan’s perception of
64 For a contrasting view see Balossi-Restelli 2006: 253-256.
Figure 6.32: Selection of major vessel forms from Pendik (modified after N. Özbaşaran 1989)
362
the Neolithic ceramic sequence in Anatolia which basically sees a threefold
development: DFBW Red slipped wares Painted pottery.
6. Ilıpınar
Ilıpınar is a mound located on an alluvial plain to the southeast of Bursa, only 2 km
South of town Orhangazi and 2 km West of Lake İznik on 100 m above sea level. The
mound covers an area of 2.5 ha. Ilıpınar takes its name from the freshwater spring
located adjacent to the mound. Mound was partly damaged on the northwest side, where
agricultural activities were carried out most intensively. The cultural deposition on the
mound reaches 5-7 m, some of which is located under the alluvial debris (Roodenberg
1995a: 1).
Ilıpınar has been known in the literature for a long time. The site was investigated and
visited by İ. Kökten in 1948, J. Mellaart in 1960, Cullberg in 1964 and D.H. French in
1965. Systematic excavations have been carried out in 1987-1995 under the direction of
J. Roodenberg of the Netherlands Historical Archaeological Institute in İstanbul. Three
monographs concerning the excavation results have been published.
Ten occupational levels have been identified at Ilıpınar which chronologically cover
periods from LN to Early Byzantine. 64 carbon dates from Levels X-VB provide an
absolute chronology with great accuracy. The oldest level, Level X, is dated to 6000-
5900 cal. BCE. The beginning of Phase X is placed between 6008-5962 cal. BCE. Early
Chalcolithic Levels IX-VA are dated to 5900-5600 cal. BCE (Roodenberg 1999a: 197-
200; Roodenberg and Schier 2001: 269). Level VB, a phase defined during the
excavations in 1996-97, is dated to 5570-5490 cal BCE and is characterized by semi-
subterranean dwellings (Roodenberg 2001: 232-233; Thissen 2008a: 98). Level VA ends
with a fire and the settlement is probably abandoned for a short time until these pit-
houses are constructed. Following VB, the next occupation is dated to the Late
Chalcolithic period (Roodenberg and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2007: 394).
363
The earliest architectural remains at
the site were concentrated around the
freshwater source. The houses were
free-standing, rectilinear, post-wall
or mud-slab structures, which had
single rooms and probably gabled
roofs that were supported by central
posts (Fig. 6.33). Inside the houses
fire installations and storage utilities
were found while ovens were located
outside the houses (Roodenberg
1999a: 196). The entrance to the
houses was mostly from the long
axis. Preservation of wood at the site
is exceptional and is probably due to
the calcium in the groundwater
(Roodenberg 1995b: 37-38). A fire
ends this settlement. Mud-slab and
post-wall single room buildings continue to be built until Levels VI-VA. In Level VA,
rectilinear houses with two or four inner buttresses have been detected (Gérard 2001:
196).
With Level VI, mud-brick houses are found on the mound. Additionally, these buildings
are no more free-standing and single-roomed. There is a remarkable change in the
settlement organization with Level VI, which is characterized by two-storey mudbrick
houses which are built adjacent to each other, forming a curve. These houses contained
ovens, extensive amounts of storage units, grinding instruments and portable material
related to daily living of the community (Gérard 2001: 192-196; Roodenberg and
Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2007: 394-395).
Level VB, with two phases, contained remains of semi-subterranean houses with well-
preserved evidence of inner architectural elements, grinding stones, ovens and ceramics.
Roodenberg suggests that Level VB was a semi-permanent settlement occupied only in
the spring-summer months (Roodenberg 2001: 232-235).
Figure 6.33: Free-standing post-wall building from late Ilıpınar X (after Roodenberg and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008: Fig. 1)
364
It is stated that Ilıpınar inhabitants were farmers from the very beginning of the
occupation onwards. Major crops were six-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare), emmer
wheat (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn wheat (T. monococcum), lentil (Lens culinaris) and
bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia). Flax (Linum usitatissimum) was also grown while wild fruits
like figs contributed to the diet of the population (van Zeist and Waterbolk-van Rooyen
1995: 161-162). In terms of the faunal remains, cattle, sheep and goat dominate the
Ilıpınar X assemblage whereas with the following phases pig gains importance in the
diet. With Phase V, cattle become the dominant species while pig remains decrease
dramatically. Freshwater mollusks were also consumed during Ilıpınar X while the
following occupations contained more marine mollusc species (Buitenhuis 1995: 152-
154).
6.1. Ceramics
Ilıpınar ceramics have been analyzed by Thissen (2001) and van As and Wijnen (1995)
in detail whose studies on pottery from Levels X-VA will be summarized below.
It is emphasized that pottery production techniques, vessel shapes and functions remain
very similar in Phases X-VI, despite the presence of several morphological and
technological changes in the sequence. A radical change in the pottery assemblage can
only be attested in Phase VA (Thissen 2001: 64). Throughout the sequence same local
clay sources are used for the pottery production.
The earliest pottery from Ilıpınar is either mineral (sand and calcite) or chaff tempered,
surface is monochrome and smoothed or burnished. The surface colors change from
grey, light brown, cream to orange-brown. Mottling is very common. Decoration is
rarely observed. Grooved, painted, plastic and incised examples have been recorded.
Three red-on-white sherds, all belong to the same vessel, have been found in the lowest
layer which is interpreted as an “import”, perhaps from the Thessalian Plain (Thissen
2001: 22).
Typical vessel shapes from Level X can be enumerated as follows: Small and middle
sized neckless jars and short necked jars with globular bodies. Lugs, set in one or two
pairs, are frequently observed on jar bellies. Bowls and deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles, also oval variants, are likewise common. Beakers, dishes, small cups, lids and
boxes are also found in the assemblage. Lugs belong to vertically pierced knobs, pierced
365
horizontal handles and crescentic lugs. True tubular lugs are absent. Large sized jars
which might have been used for storage or transport purposes are rare. Bases are flat.
With Phase IX, chaff temper disappears and sand, with occasional appearance of
limestone, becomes the only ware group. The only chaff tempered pottery is the so-
called “straw-tempered coarse ware” which are basically unbaked clay containers for
storage. Pottery from Phases IX-VIII is completely mineral tempered. The surface colors
are dominated by dark grey, dark grayish brown and grey-black hues. Certain
morphological changes have been detected with Phase IX. It is noted that hole-mouth
forms become rare and vessel bodies are more globular. Necks are still short but more
pronounced (Thissen 2001: 37). Impressed pots appear with Phase IX and continue well
into Phase VIII. Irregular, finger-nail impressions dominate the early impressed vessels
while more regular execution of the decoration in one direction becomes more popular
with phase VIII. It is indicated that impressions are made on burnished surfaces while
burnishing made after decoration has been attested too (Thissen 2001: 40-41). Oval
bowls and ‘s’-shaped profiled shapes do continue. Large storage vessels are also
encountered but still in low numbers. Pierced lugs on small jars continue to appear.
Apart from the impressed vessels, plastic decoration was also applied on vessels. A
number of vessel fragments with excised decoration from Level VIII have been
categorized as “imports” (Thissen 2001: Figs. 45 and 46). Finally, vessels named as
“pipes” appear only in Level VIII (Thissen 2001: 45).
Pottery from the subsequent Levels VII-VI is highly analogous to that of Levels IX-VIII
and clearly a continuation of these earlier horizons. Surface colors are mainly different in
hues of brown. Jars with short necks and globular bodies, deep bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles, pierced knobs and handles, flat bases, dishes, beakers continue to be produced.
Nevertheless, some vessel shapes and attributes disappear with these phases. Straw-
tempered coarse ware, boxes, flat lids, the so-called “pipes”, plastic and impressed
decorations, among others, are not found in the Ilıpınar VII-VI pottery assemblage. Two
important vessel categories are new: Carinated bowls with diameters that reach up to 35-
40 cm and occasional grooved white-filled decoration, and square pots (Thissen 2001:
64-65). The first examples of pots with lugs on rims are also seen in these phases
(Thissen 2001: Figure 61: 3-5). Technologically, it is observed that more time was spent
on the surface finishing. It is also mentioned that the firing process was also developed,
occurring under higher temperatures (Thissen 2001: 65). Despite the continuation of
366
some major forms from the previous levels, the level of change (disappearance and
appearance of some shapes, decoration techniques etc.) is a significant trait of these
phases.
We may remind that Phase VI at Ilıpınar is characterized by the first mudbrick
architecture and pottery assemblages reflect this change in its own terms. In this respect,
Thissen (2001: 83) states that “in rough terms, Phases X-VII are stable, without major
interruptions, concerning architecture, settlement planning and material culture. From
Phase VI onwards changes occur more rapidly”.
Thissen (2001: 75) indicates that substantial changes in the pottery technology and
function are also detected with Level VA. A number of features, morphological and
technological, are new in Phase VA. Surface colors are reported to be different from the
previous phases, dominated by light to dark brown and grey-black shades. It is noted that
surfaces are coarser and uneven compared to previous Phases VII-VI. There are pots
with lugs on rim, vertical handles, curvilinear and rectilinear grooved decorations, jars
with long necks and flat-square shaped lips. Carinated forms and square pots with
grooved decoration continue to be produced in Level VA. Carinated bowls have vertical
upper bodies and are rarely decorated.
6.2. Comparing Ilıpınar with Ulucak
Roodenberg, Thissen and Buitenhuis (1989-1990: Tab. 2) compare Ilıpınar X with
Fikirtepe and Hacılar IX-VI in ceramic terms. Ilıpınar IX-VIII is set contemporary with
Yarımburgaz 4 while Ilıpınar V and Yarımburgaz 3-2 are compared with Karanovo II-III
phases (Thissen 2008a: 100).
According to the carbon dates from Ilıpınar and Ulucak, Ulucak IV is roughly
contemporary with Ilıpınar X-VIII as the latter cover 6000-5800 cal. BCE. Ulucak V
pre-dates Ilıpınar sequence. In the light of ceramic evidence we will compare and
contrast the ceramic assemblages from both sites in order to understand to what extent
Central-West Anatolia and İznik Lake Basin are related during the beginning of 6th
millennium cal. BCE.
First of all, in terms of fabrics (ware groups) there seems to be little correlation between
the two regions. The ubiquitous RSBW of Ulucak IV is not present at Ilıpınar at all.
Ilıpınar X pottery, similar to Ulucak, is composed of fine-medium wares with smoothed-
burnished surfaces, but the surface color does not match with that of Ulucak where dark
367
red, red and orange-red colors are clearly predominating. In terms of non-plastic
inclusions, presence of chaff along with mineral inclusions in pottery of Phase X shows
parallels to Ulucak IV where chaff is commonly added as temper to the pottery.
However, it is known that with the following phases at Ilıpınar, organic temper is not
used at all. The reason for this change remains speculative but the choice of the non-
plastic material does not seem to indicate cultural-technological parallels between
Ilıpınar and Ulucak. CSBW are not found in the early Ilıpınar assemblages either
(although the bowl depicted on Roodenberg 1999: Figure 17 corresponds well to Ulucak
cream slipped wares). In turn, dark colored (grey, black, dark brown) wares with or
without white-filled incisions are very foreign to Ulucak ceramics. Incision, all together,
is extremely rare in the Ulucak assemblage. Red-on-white painted sherds from Ilıpınar X
(Thissen 2001: Fig. 8.10) are interpreted as “imports”. It can be however noted that at
both sites painted sherds are extremely low in number, indicating that the painted pottery
production was not adopted in both regions.
In contrast to fabrics, there are a good number of similarities in vessel morphology
between Ulucak and Ilıpınar X. Hole-mouth small-medium sized jars with four lugs are
very characteristic of the entire Ulucak sequence but they are especially typical for Early
IV and Va-b. Absence of necked jars at Ilıpınar X may indicate that Phase X corresponds
to Ulucak Early IV-Va than to Late Ulucak IV sequence. Pierced knobs are frequently
found in Ulucak assemblage. But horizontal pierced handles and crescentic lugs of
Ilıpınar are absent at Ulucak. Vertically placed tubular lugs of Central-West Anatolia are
completely missing at Ilıpınar. Small and medium sized jars with short necks are
likewise very frequently found at Early IV-V Ulucak. It is seen that at Ilıpınar X, jars
have already developed necks but they are far from the developed long necks of later
phases and Ulucak IVb.
Another morphological similarity is observed in open forms, especially concerning the
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles. As it is known, such bowls are one of the definitive
features of LN-EC assemblages in the entire Central-West Anatolia. At Ulucak, both
levels contain high numbers of ‘s’-shaped profiled vessels, especially bowls and large
bowls but in some cases even jars. In Level IVb, oval variants of large bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles have been excavated. Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles are frequent at
Ilıpınar X. Moreover, the oval variant of such bowls have also been found at the site
(Thissen 2001: Fig. 7). For Ulucak sequence, appearance of oval forms is
368
chronologically important as such forms are completely lacking at Ulucak in Level V. If
we can apply the same correlation to İznik Lake Basin, along with the absence of jars
with long necks, we may suggest that Ilıpınar X chronologically corresponds to Early
Ulucak IV (IVg-k). The only contradicting fact is the existence of impressed wares at
early Ulucak IV and their absence at Ilıpınar X. They appear evidently first in Ilıpınar
IX. Is this an indication of slightly earlier date for Ilıpınar X or later appearance of
impressed pottery in Northwest Anatolia?
The difference in vessel morphology is restricted to the absence of Fikirtepe elements
such as incised dark colored boxes, grooved decoration and flat lids at Ulucak. Although
sporadic, the so-called “offering table” has been attested in Ulucak IV assemblage but
they simply lack features that are observed specifically on “Fikirtepe boxes.” Finally, we
can note that at Ulucak bases are predominantly of disc type whereas at Ilıpınar X bases
are in most cases flat.
In the following Phases IX-VIII at Ilıpınar, fabrics and vessel morphology remain almost
the same, except the complete disappearance of organic non-plastic inclusions. In
general, jar and bowl forms are still very similar to the previous phase. Some larger jars
are also produced. Pierced knobs and horizontal large handles are likewise still frequent,
the latter lacking at Ulucak. Vertical small strap handles on jar neck is observed both at
Ilıpınar IX and Ulucak IVb. Appearance of such jars already indicates that Ilıpınar IX-
VIII is chronologically closer to late IV at Ulucak. In Phases IX-VIII, there is one crucial
change in the assemblage which we would like to discuss here. It is stated that the
impressed wares are produced for the first time at Ilıpınar IX-VIII. With the following
Phase VII, impressed wares are entirely absent in the assemblage. Presence of impressed
wares are at both sites, in my opinion, is very interesting with regards to the distribution
of impressed pottery in Anatolia and their chronological position in the Neolithic
sequence.
369
At Ulucak, it is well demonstrated that impressed wares appear with sub-phase Va in the
beginning of 6th millennium cal. BCE. There is a clear similarity between Ulucak and
Ilıpınar impressed wares. Similar to Ulucak, impressed decoration is associated with
small-medium sized jars at Ilıpınar, too (Thissen 2001: 40). Finger, nail, finger pinching
and impressions made with pointed instruments are attested at Ilıpınar (Fig. 6.34). The
resulting impressions are mainly confined to irregular vertical-horizontal shallow
impressions on vessel body which leaves rim area void of decoration. Pinching is more
frequently attested at Ilıpınar IX-VIII than at Ulucak IV. At Ulucak IV, impressions are
likewise irregularly scattered on the vessel body which can be very shallow.
There are some differing features too. At Ilıpınar, in some cases impressions are
accompanied by grooved lines or may position to form upturned “V” shapes (see
Thissen 2001: Fig. 37). These are techniques that are not observed at Ulucak. At Ulucak,
the impressions may have more variety of shapes ranging from half-circles to tear-drops.
Full circles applied with impressing a straw or hollowed instrument has also been
attested at Ulucak. Another divergence is the application of impressions on burnished
surfaces at Ilıpınar whereas at Ulucak both burnished and unburnished surfaces can have
impressed decoration. Moreover, at Ulucak impressed decoration is more associated with
Gray Wares (36%) and RSBW (58%). Gray wares have unburnished gray-brown
surfaces and are in general coarser than RSBW. Thissen suggests that there is a
Figure 6.34: Impressed sherds. 1-3: Ilıpınar VIII (modified after Thissen 2001: Figs. 27 and 28); 4-6: Tell El-Kerkh II (modified after Miyake and Tsuneki 1996); 7: Ulucak IVc; 8: Ulucak IVf; 9: Ulucak IVh
370
correlation between cereals and impressed decorations as the impressions are similar in
form to ear of cereals (Thissen 2001: 41). Despite minor differences, I think Ilıpınar and
Ulucak impressed sherds are well comparable to each other and probably they share a
common origin. Where this supposed origin would lie is for the time being unclear. It is
known that impressed wares are seldom found in Central Anatolia and Lake District and
are more associated with littoral Neolithic cultures in the Mediterranean. What does their
presence at Ilıpınar indicate? Is it a result of interaction with coastal sites of Marmara
who produced such pottery or an interaction with Inner-West Anatolia? It is known that
at Demircihöyük very similar impressed wares, again associated with short necked jars,
have been detected (Seeher 1987: Taf. 21). Their presence indicates that the same
concept of decoration was present in the Eskişehir Region. How does the situation look
like beyond Eskişehir to the South is simply unknown due to lack of investigations.
However we can point out that Fındık Kayabaşı and Akmakça surface pottery is devoid
of impressed wares (Efe 1995).
The missing link for the impressed pottery can be sought in two areas: 1. Inner-West
Anatolia 2. Coastal Aegean and Marmara Sea. To my mind, littoral areas seem more
probable for the origins of impressed wares, as such wares have been found at Mersin-
Yumuktepe, Amuq sites, Ras Shamra, Tell el Kerkh, Tell Sabi Abyad, and Mezraa
Teleilat (see Balossi-Restelli 2006). At Tell Sabi Abyad, impressed pots, although rare,
appear in Levels 8-6 which correspond to pre-Halaf and transitional phases to Halaf
(Nieuwenhuyse 2007: 169). The best parallels for Ilıpınar and Ulucak impressed wares
in Eastern Mediterranean come from Tell el-Kerkh (Miyake and Tsuneki 1996: 121)
where similar to Central-West Anatolian sites and Ilıpınar rocker decoration was not
observed. Until the investigations at areas where we define as “missing links” are
conducted and origins of impressed wares are questioned, our suggestion will remain as
a hypothesis.
Beyond the possible common origins of impressed wares at Ilıpınar and Ulucak, one can
note that they remain quantitatively low at both sites. At Ulucak they constitute 4-5% of
the ceramic assemblage. Similar to Southeast Anatolian, Amuq and North Syrian sites,
although impressed wares are locally produced in West Anatolia, they never become a
dominant pottery group, neither at Ulucak nor in Ilıpınar.
371
The excised decoration and “pipes” observed in Ilıpınar VIII are absent at Ulucak. A
comparison for the vessel group “pipes” comes however from Kuruçay 7 (see Duru
1994: Lev. 160.6) and Hacılar IIA (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 75.9).
With Phases VII-VI, carinated bowls and square jars appear at Ilıpınar while the old
common forms continue to be produced in large numbers. Grooved decoration on
carinated bowls which have vertical upper bodies are first observed in these phases, too.
Furthermore, impressed vessels disappear at Ilıpınar with phase VII whereas at Ulucak
they are produced until the end of the fourth settlement. In my opinion, all these point
out that Ilıpınar VII-VI post-date Ulucak IV. Indeed, the carbon dates indicate that
Ilıpınar VII begins towards the end of the 58th cal. BCE (Roodenberg and Schier 2001:
269). Two carbon dates from Ulucak IVb give calibrated results 5900-5660 and 5990-
5730 BCE at two sigma calibrated range. It seems likely that Ulucak IV is abandoned as
Ilıpınar VII was founded.
Interestingly, big sized jars with long vertical necks, a feature of Ulucak IVb, are
especially observed at Ilıpınar VA. On the other hand, pots with ledge handles on rim are
not seen at Ulucak where lugs always remain below rim. Such pots with ledge handles
on rim are well-known from EC Central Anatolia and Niğde-Bor Plains at sites like
Çatal West, Musular and Can Hasan (see sections F. Beyşehir-Suğla Basin and Konya
Plain and G. Melendiz and Bor Plains). They are also found in Kızılırmak Basin at
Yarıkkaya Plateau (Schoop 2005a: Taf. 25). Obviously, they become popular at Ilıpınar
VA, too. However, jars with small vertical handles on neck and neckless jars with
horizontal knobs below the rim have been encountered at Ulucak IVb-d which provides
good comparisons with Ilıpınar jars from VI-VA (Fig. 6.34).
To conclude, it is possible to suggest that Ilıpınar X and Early Ulucak IV are
contemporary, whereas Ilıpınar IX-VI can be set contemporary with the entire Ulucak
IV. The subsequent Ilıpınar ceramic sequence cannot be found at Ulucak, although
certain similarities can still be detected.
Ilıpınar and Ulucak are especially comparable with regards to their vessel morphology,
although certain similarities can be found in the fabrics too. “Fikirtepe” features at
Ilıpınar, such as lids and incised boxes, are never matched at Ulucak. The most
interesting common feature at both sites is the appearance of impressed wares. We
suggested that impressed wares at both settlements might have shared common origins,
372
perhaps going back to Northern Syria. At both settlements, they remain low in number
and are chronologically restricted to a period between 6000-5700 cal. BCE. Relying on
the data from both sites, it can be suggested that impressed vessels do not appear before
or after this date.
We have compared jars with vertical handles and knobs below rim from Ulucak and
Ilıpınar but the carbon dates indicate that Ilıpınar VA post-dates Ulucak IVb, and
carinated bowls and square pots are never encountered at Ulucak. Moreover, impressed
pottery and vertical tubular lugs continue to be produced until the abandonment of the
settlement whereas at Ilıpınar these are not found in the assemblage following phase VII.
7. Menteşe Höyük
Menteşe is located only 25 km south of Ilıpınar on Yenişehir Plain where until recently
Lake Yenişehir was situated. The prehistoric mound, together with Barcın Höyük, (see
below) was probably situated in close proximity to the lakeshore. Menteşe is a four
meter high mound whose diameter measures 100 m. The archaeological debris continues
1.5 m under the present surface of the plain. The mound was heavily damaged during a
road construction which cut the mound in two equal halves. Destruction was also caused
plowing of the surface soil and burrows of animals (Roodenberg 1999b: 21-23).
Excavations were carried out on the site in 1996-2000 by Museum of İznik and
Netherlands Institute of Archaeology in İstanbul. The direction of the archaeological
work followed under the supervision of J. Roodenberg who since 1987 made
investigations around İznik Basin and aimed to uncover at Menteşe comparable material
to Ilıpınar’s early sequence. In 2000, a deep sounding has been made on the mound
which reached the virgin soil and revealed an assemblage that pre-dated Ilıpınar X by
500 years (Roodenberg 1999b: 21-22; Roodenberg et al. 2003: 17).
Three layers have been distinguished on the mound. “Strata 1”comprises Roman, Middle
Bronze and Chalcolithic age deposits. “Stratum 2” refers to 20-30 thick black ash layer
which covers the burnt debris of Stratum 3. Stratum 2 is interpreted as cultivated fields
used for several centuries when the mound was not inhabited. The earliest Stratum 3,
around 3 m of cultural deposit, has been divided into three distinctive occupational
layers which are called “upper”, “middle” and “lower”. Lower occupational layers
(Levels 126-130) constitute the 1-1.5 m thick deposits above the virgin soil. Middle
occupational layers (Levels 110-125) belong to the various surfaces with many finds that
373
are interpreted as courtyards. The most upper layers of Stratum 3 correspond to Levels
100-109 which contain red colored burnt architectural remains of a house which is cut by
EC pit burials (Roodenberg 1999b: 24-25; Roodenberg and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2007:
Fig. 9).
One of the houses (“esb1” or “the burnt house”) is a rectilinear wattle-and-daub
structure, ca. 5 x 5 m in size, with mud plastered walls and floor. The posts in the walls
were only 4-5 cm thick, the distance between them 10-15 cm and the walls themselves
are 25-30 cm wide (Roodenberg et al. 2003: 18). Four burials have been uncovered
under the floor level of the burnt house. Two of these are deliberately placed under the
floor which seems to be a unique practice for the Neolithic Yenişehir-İznik cultures
(Roodenberg et al. 2003: 19).
Three other buildings (nsb2, nsb3 and nsb4) have also been partially recovered from the
Stratum 3 of Menteşe. These belong to the earlier occupations than esb1, the oldest one
being “nsb4” whose southern wall was found 20-30 cm directly beneath nsb2
(Roodenberg et al. 2003: 20). Nsb2 and nsb3 are also rectilinear in plan and built with
mud-slab technique. The walls have been preserved up to 20-30 cm high and similar to
nsb1 their walls are only 25-30 cm in width. Additionally, adjacent to nsb2’s southern
wall a courtyard area with storage units, baskets and mud boxes, have been excavated
(Roodenberg 1999b: 24-25). It is noted that floors of the houses were without finds
whereas courtyard areas contained high amount of material culture. Additionally, wall of
a mudbrick building was spotted in the southern section of the sounding area which
indicates that various building techniques, mud-slab, wattle-and-daub and mudbrick,
were applied simultaneously at the basal Menteşe settlement (Roodenberg et al. 2003:
21). Below the remains of houses were superimposed surfaces with various finds like
scattered stones, pottery, storage units and grinding stones (Roodenberg et al. 2003:
Figs. 9, 10).
Nine carbon dates are available from basal Menteşe which roughly cover a period from
6400-5900 cal. BCE (Roodenberg et al. 2003: Fig. 11). The basal Menteşe is dated to
6440-6220 cal. BCE (Thissen 2005: 35). The earliest dates from Stratum 3 of Menteşe
which cluster around 6400-6200 cal. BCE are as follows: 7550±50BP, 7410±130BP and
7450±25BP (Roodenberg et al. 2003: Fig. 11).
374
Ceramics
Ceramics from the basal levels of Menteşe have been subject to a technological study. It
is understood that they are mineral tempered, moderately fired and burnished
monochrome wares. Slip is extremely rare. Surface colors range from black, dark grey,
brown to tones of red while mottling is very commonly found on the surface of the
ceramics. Non-plastic inclusions include calcite, quartz and mica schist (Roodenberg et
al. 2003: 26-29). Thissen (2005: 35) notes that basal Menteşe pottery changes from
being grit-tempered to dense calcite tempered.
Vessel shapes are very restricted in this early horizon. Bowls and deep bowls with
convex and slight ‘s’-shaped profiles as well as hole-mouth jars with flattened and
everted rims are very common. Prismatic vessels (boxes) and flat lid fragments are also
found in the assemblage, but not in the earliest deposits. Bases are flat. Pierced knobs
and lugs, horizontal handles are found in the assemblage. One strap handle fragment was
also present among the collected samples (Roodenberg et al. 2003: Figs. 12-16).
Decorated pieces are very low in number. Decoration is mainly made with incisions
which show criss-cross pattern which may be filled with whitish clay. Shallow incisions
are encountered, though, in all layers at Menteşe (Thissen 2005: 35).
Roodenberg et al. (2003: 34-36) compare Menteşe ceramics to Ilıpınar X-IX and
Fikirtepe-Pendik assemblages and conclude that basal Menteşe constitutes the Archaic
Fikirtepe phase and transition to Classical phase of Fikirtepe Culture. One of the
definitive results of the study is the confirmation of the absence of a cultural break
between Archaic and Classical phases of Fikirtepe Culture. Similar to the Fikirtepe
sequence, where earlier pottery contains no decoration (Bittel 1969: 10), decorated
pieces and “Fikirtepe boxes” are completely absent in the earliest layers at Menteşe.
Moreover, pierced knobs and lugs are likewise rare in the lower basal Menteşe. Black
colored and well-burnished pieces, probably equal to jet-black wares of Classic Fikirtepe
Culture, are mainly found in the upper occupational layers of basal Menteşe.
Menteşe basal sequence provides the first stratigraphical and carbon dated evidence of
early Fikirtepe horizon from Northwest Anatolia. It is seen that boxes, black-burnished
pottery, pierced knobs-lugs and developed incised decoration belong to a later phase
(Classic Fikirtepe) while the earliest phases contained only monochrome mineral
tempered pottery with hole-mouth shapes and initial ‘s’-shaped profiles. Menteşe is
375
especially significant in terms of defining and absolute dating the Archaic Fikirtepe
phase which seems to be stretching back into the middle of 7th millennium cal BCE. The
material from the site also provides comparative material for LN assemblages of Lake
District and Central-West Anatolia, especially for Ulucak Va-f sequence which is dated
to circa 6400-6100 cal. BCE.
The prehistoric pottery from Stratum 1 is characterized by grey-beige burnished wares
and jars with vertical handles on rim and carinated bowls with sharply everted rims and
grooved decoration (Roodenberg 2003: 25). It is observed that small knobs were applied
to the carinations on the bowls; a feature well-known from Hacılar I (Roodenberg 2003:
Fig. 12). The pottery shapes from Menteşe Stratum 1, dated to 5700 cal BCE, is well-
comparable to the Ilıpınar VI-VA assemblage. Large bowls with fluted decoration on rim
is compared to Ilıpınar VB.
8. Barcın Höyük
The prehistoric mound, composed of two mounds, is located on an alluvial plain 4 km
west of town Yenişehir in district Bursa. The site was initially called “Yenişehir II” by
French, who surveyed the region in the 1960’s. The current designation of the mound is
Barcın Höyük after the name of the nearest village. Until recently, Yenişehir Lake was
located in the close vicinity of the site, which today still provides a marshy environment.
The excavations began at the site in 2005 under the supervision of J. Roodenberg of
Netherlands Institute of Archaeology in Istanbul and Museum of İznik. Since 2007,
excavations continue under the direction of F. Gerritsen of Netherlands Institute of
Archaeology in İstanbul (Roodenberg, van As and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008).
The mound was inhabited from Neolithic to Byzantine period. Roman, Early Bronze
Age and Late Chalcolithic remains are attested on the mound. Early Bronze Age debris,
because they are close to the mound surface, were highly damaged. The 2005-2006
excavations were carried out on the bigger mound where Chalcolithic and Neolithic
debris were unearthed. Excavations in 2007 revealed material from all the prehistoric
periods. According to the drillings made on the mound the Neolithic deposits are 2.5 m
thick which are dated to 6420-6100 cal. BCE through two carbon dates (Gr-A32899:
7310±40 BP and Gr-A33660: 7470±60 BP). These deposits are characterized by burnt
mud deposits and occupational features such as ovens, storage facilities, midden areas,
and three human burials were exposed in one grid (Roodenberg, van As and Alpaslan-
376
Roodenberg 2008: 54). Recent excavation also revealed rectilinear houses built with
mud-slab technique and evidence for red painted lime floor in a small area where a deep
sondage has been made.65 It goes without saying that the ongoing excavations will reveal
more on the Neolithic occupations on the mound.
Ceramics
The pottery assigned to the Neolithic and EC periods have been excavated in two grids
so far.66 The good majority of the pottery is fine, thin-walled, mineral tempered,
moderately-well fired, burnished monochrome wares which show a variety of surface
colors ranging from dark gray, dark reddish brown, brown, light brown to yellowish red.
The most common non-plastic inclusions are calcite, quartz and limestone. Chaff as a
temper is not attested. Paste colors are similar to surface colors which range from brown,
grey to reddish yellow examples. Black cores are absent in the assemblage. Although
smoothing and burnishing very is commonly observed, surfaces are not necessarily
glossy (Roodenberg, van As and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008: 56). Thissen (2008b: 7-8)
interprets the oxidized nature of the cores as an evidence of high firing temperatures and
neutral to oxidizing firing conditions.
Decoration is very rarely observed. Few incised pieces have been attested which are in
most cases filled with a white substance. Three painted pieces (red-on-white) have been
found in 2007 which, however, according to Thissen, may be intrusive from the Late
Chalcolithic layers (Thissen 2008b: 8). Several fragments of thin-walled deep bowls
carry parallel zigzag lines, executed in a thin whitish paint leaving negative patterns on
the burnished surfaces (cf. Roodenberg, van As and Alpaslan-Roodenberg 2008: 55-56).
Vessel morphology is dominated by bowls with convex and ‘s’-shaped profiles, oval
bowls, hole-mouth jars and short necked jars. Rims are typically everted or simple.
Pierced knobs and vertically placed tubular lugs, typically associated with hole-mouth
jars, are present in the assemblage. Slanted (crescent shaped) handles are also attested at
Barcın Höyük. The so-called “Fikirtepe boxes” with incised, grooved or impressed
decorations have also been commonly encountered in the Neolithic assemblage.
Decorations are mainly confined to dotted triangles and zig-zags. The excavators
compare Barcın Neolithic pottery to basal Menteşe, including the appearance of very
65 This information is kindly provided by Rana Özbal (02.03.2009). 66 Laurens Thissen kindly made his preliminary report on Barcın pottery available to me. Some of the information provided here relies on his report from excavation season 2007.
377
fine brown burnished ware with white paint. It is suggested that this ware is not locally
produced but brought to the site as an import (Roodenberg, van As and Alpaslan-
Roodenberg 2008: 55-56). Thissen (2008b: 14-15) likewise considers Barcın assemblage
to be roughly contemporary with basal Menteşe, Demircihöyük, Fikirtepe and Pendik as
excellent parallels in ceramics fabrics and forms are found at all these sites.
9. Aktopraklık
The site, comprised of two settlement mounds, is located on a natural hill 25 km west of
Bursa and 3 km Northeast of Lake Ulubat. Hasanağa Stream and two additional
freshwater sources are located in the close vicinity of the site. Aktopraklık is excavated
since 2004 under the direction of Necmi Karul of Istanbul University.
According to Karul (2007: 387), the site was situated closer to the lake shore in the
prehistoric periods. The two mounds are called as “Upper” and “Lower” settlements
which are 100 m distanced from each other. The upper settlement is ca. 150 x 150 m and
contains 2.5 m archaeological deposits whereas lower settlement, having the same size,
has an accumulation of 2.2 m. Additionally, to the north of Aktopraklık, a prehistoric
cemetery or settlement has also been recently located and investigated by archaeologists
from Bursa Archaeological Museum.
Excavations on the upper settlement revealed various architectural features along with a
ditch which is around 8-11 m thick and up to 2.5 m deep. It surrounds an area with 130
m diameter (Karul 2006: 481). It has been observed that the ditch has been renewed and
re-plastered multiple times. The ditch fill contained garbage pits and burials as well as
dark colored burnished pottery with white incrustations which can be roughly dated to
second half of 6th millennium BCE (Karul 2007: 388-389).
Houses from the Upper Höyük are characterized by square-like plans and inner
buttresses. The walls are constructed without any use of foundations with loam and
wood, and are subsequently plastered with thick lime. One of the houses excavated on
the Upper Höyük was plastered with greenish clay and then with white lime. Horizontal
wooden beams have been observed in the walls which seem to continue into the floor
level of the house. It is possible that wooden beams were covering the floor too. A
circular domed oven has been uncovered in the same house. The material culture from
this level is dominated by biconical clay sling bullets, limestone beads and clay weights
(Karul 2007: 390).
378
Pottery associated with buttressed houses is described as brown-gray colored and thick
walled. Globular pots with short necks and deep incisions are said to be typical for this
phase. There is little correlation between the pottery from the houses and the pottery
from the ditch. Karul (2007: 390) indicates that the houses contained pottery which is
comparable to Ilıpınar V which is dated to the middle of the 6th millennium cal. BCE.
Excavations at the Lower Höyük revealed another ditch and two massive walls which
run parallel to it. The ditch covers an area with 65 m diameter (Karul 2006: 481). The
ditch has been filled with burnt loam lumps with impressions of wattle, sling missiles
and pottery. It is suggested that the massive wall constructions that run parallel to the
ditch served to protect the settlement from floods from Lake Ulubat (Karul 2007: 391).
At Aktopraklık, settlement layers that are dated to earlier centuries will be uncovered in
the coming years. In the light of the published material, it is not yet possible to make
conclusive statements on the dating and correlation with Ulucak material. Nevertheless,
it is clear that Aktopraklık ditch finds and buttressed houses are later than Ulucak IV, as
such houses have been detected in the same region only at Ilıpınar VA (Gérard 2001:
183) which is securely dated to 5600-5550 cal. BCE.
10. The Ceramic Sequence of the İznik Lake Basin and Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
Four excavated mounds in the İznik Lake Basin which cover overlapping stages of the
Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods improve our understanding of the way of life in the
region. Most importantly, it makes clear how diverse contemporary settlements can be. It
is important to recognize that a variety of architectural techniques were implemented in
one settlement such as at Ilıpınar and Menteşe. Yet ceramic production, the forms,
decoration techniques, fabrics, tempering, firing techniques, function of the pottery, are
very similar in the whole region including the sites around İstanbul. There are
similarities and differences in the subsistence strategy as dictated by the differing
ecological zones settled by the early agro-pastoralists but basically these settlements
were food producing communities, including Fikirtepe and Pendik, where freshwater and
marine resources also played important role in the diet (Buitenhuis 1995).
İznik Lake Basin sites are extremely important as they provide a continuous long
sequence for the region and provide archaeological material from well-dated secure
379
contexts. Accumulated data from İznik Lake Basin provide the possibility to make
interregional comparisons with other Anatolian regions.
The earliest known ceramic horizon from the region is defined through the basal layers
at Menteşe Höyük whose deposits are securely dated to 6400-6200 cal. BCE. Upcoming
excavation seasons at Barcın Höyük will most certainly provide more material
chronologically comparable to basal Menteşe. Judging by the presence of red painted
lime floor at Barcın, discovery of material dating to the first half of the 7th millennium
BCE seems plausible.
It is observed the earliest pottery assemblage from Menteşe encompasses a well-
developed pottery production, which is characterized by fine, mineral tempered dark
colored and burnished wares. Decoration and functional applications like lugs and
handles are very rare, almost absent. The most typical vessel shapes are bowls/large
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and hole-mouth jars. Form variability is low in this very
early stage. As mentioned above, early Menteşe provides us with typical “Archaic
Fikirtepe” pottery which has been previously defined by Özdoğan (1979) at site
Fikirtepe itself. With the research at Menteşe, this horizon is firmly dated and better
defined through well-preserved contexts. Moreover, existence of sites from the middle
7th millennium BCE in the İznik Lake Basin has also been proven which allows for
comparisons with sites like Çatalhöyük and Bademağacı. It is of great importance that
Çatalhöyük’s corresponding levels, V-IV, have similar wares and vessel shapes to basal
Menteşe (Özdöl 2008b). This situation again reminds us Özdoğan’s remark that dark
colored burnished wares of Northwest Anatolia might have their origins in Central
Anatolia and Southeast Anatolia (Özdoğan 2000: 168). Future research at Barcın will
shed light on the initial phases of pottery Neolithic in this area.
In Central-West Anatolia, sites contemporary to basal Menteşe have solely been
investigated at Early Yeşilova III and Ulucak which have deposits that reach back to the
middle of the 7th millennium cal. BCE. Ulucak Va-f falls exactly into the period that is
covered by Menteşe’s early deposits. In this study, only sub-phases Va-b, 6200-6000 cal.
BCE, are presented in detail. Therefore, we will restrict ourselves to compare basal
Menteşe with these two sub-phases. But we have to stress the fact that Vc-f pottery from
Ulucak are, despite various differences, are in accordance with basal Menteşe both in
terms of wares and forms.
380
The basic common features at basal Menteşe and Ulucak V is the presence of hole-
mouth jars with simple, everted and flattened rims as well as bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles with or without tubular lugs. Oval forms can also be considered as common
morphological elements in both regions. Interestingly, oval forms do not appear at
Ulucak V yet, but they are already present at basal Menteşe. Current data indicate that
oval forms occur much earlier in the İznik Lake Basin than in Central-West Anatolia.
Another common feature is the presence of brown burnished ware at Ulucak Va-b and
dark colored burnished wares at basal Menteşe. I believe that mineral tempered dark
colored burnished pottery which increases at Ulucak V is more or less equal to dark
colored burnished wares of basal Menteşe which are likewise mineral tempered. But this
statement remains hypothetical for the moment. The precise nature of the dark burnished
wares phenomena across Anatolia around the middle of the 7th millennium BCE has to
await upcoming problem-oriented studies.
There are some important differences between Ulucak and Menteşe assemblages though.
First of all, cream slipped wares and RSBW of Ulucak V is completely absent at
Menteşe. We may remind that 24% of all pottery belongs to cream slipped and burnished
type at Ulucak Vb whereas RSBW still constitutes 37%. These two major wares that are
present in the Ulucak sequence until the end of the settlement are apparently never been
adapted in Northwest Anatolia, certainly not in this early stage. In other words, absence
of RSBW and CSBW in Northwest Anatolia poses a major contrast to contemporary
Central-West Anatolian sites.
There are some divergent morphological features between Ulucak and Menteşe, too.
These are especially felt at handle and lug types. Although, vertical tubular lugs
(“elongated lugs” as Thissen calls them) are found on Menteşe vessels, lugs on the inside
of the rim, horizontally pierced elongated lugs, slanted lugs (crescent shaped), heavy
horizontal handles and pronounced strap handles are not known at Ulucak V. Ulucak V
handle-lug typology seems to be even less variable. Most of them (70-79%) are
represented by vertically placed tubular lugs while the rest is represented by vertically
pierced knobs or single unpierced knobs. On the other hand, certain lug-handle types
known from Menteşe are matched at Çatalhöyük. Pierced lug attached inside of the rim
is known from Hacılar and Ege Gübre, therefore not foreign to Lake District and
Central-West Anatolia, although certainly absent at Ulucak IV-V.
381
Another feature which differs in both regions is the base type. At Ulucak V, round disc
bases are dominating the base typology while simple flat and ring bases are observed to
a lesser extent. At basal Menteşe, majority of the bases are flat and flat-oval. Pedestal
base, although known from Hacılar and Çatal West, has never been attested at Ulucak
whereas one example is depicted from Menteşe (Roodenberg et al. 2003: Fig. 15.5).
Flat or raised lids, which occur at all Fikirtepe sites, are absent at Ulucak IV-V. At
Ulucak, clay jar stoppers with mat impressions, similar to the ones from Aşağı Pınar 6
(Özdoğan, E. 2007), have been found. There is apparently a difference in the way in
which goods were stored at Northwest Anatolian and Central-West Anatolian sites.
In terms of decoration, as it is already mentioned, shallow incisions forming cross-
hatched geometrical shapes are typical for Northwest Anatolian sites while in Central-
West Anatolia this technique is never adapted. The only decoration type that is worth
mentioning from the region is impressions, but this technique appears only in the
beginning of EC period (Ulucak IV, Yeşilova Late, Ege Gübre, Çukuriçi and Dedecik-
Heybelitepe) whereas Ulucak Vb pottery remains almost completely undecorated, except
for the sporadic appearance of painted and plastic decorated sherds. Plastic decoration
has also been attested at Menteşe and Ilıpınar X-IX. Wavy lines and bucrania motifs are
attested at Ulucak Va-b while a human face and wavy band have been applied to vessels
at Ilıpınar X-IX (Thissen 2001: Figs. 13 and 32).
It is indicated by Roodenberg et al. (2003: 34) that the earliest deposits of basal Menteşe
contained less incised sherds than the upper ones. This indicates that in Northwestern
Anatolia, similar to Central-West Anatolia, the real Neolithic pottery (pre-6000 cal.
BCE) was devoid of decorations.
The Fikirtepe boxes with incisions, another typical feature of the region, have not been
found in Central-West Anatolia until now, although footed prismatic vessels have been
attested in West Anatolia, including Lake District, and incised fragments of Fikirtepe
boxes have been found at Coşkuntepe and Moralı, both to the North of İzmir
(Schwarzberg 2005: Fig. 3). At Ulucak, there are several fragments of footed vessels but
these are clustered around Level IV and they are undecorated. At basal Menteşe,
Fikirtepe boxes were not present in the earliest occupation layers (120-130) indicating in
İznik Lake Basin, too, such vessels do not belong to the earliest pottery assemblages but
have been produced first in the upcoming stages (Roodenberg et al. 2003: 34).
382
The following horizon, in which typical Fikirtepe features appear are known from a
number of sites such as Ilıpınar X, Barcın Höyük, Pendik and Fikirtepe, and is defined as
“Classic Fikirtepe” phase. In this phase, mineral dark colored burnished wares continue
to be produced in large amounts but there are important additions to the form repertoire.
In addition to the already mentioned “Fikirtepe boxes” certain types of decoration
(incisions, grooves) are seen first in this stage. The basic forms, oval bowls and small-
medium sized jars, are still dominating the assemblage but the ‘s’-shaped profiles are
more developed and jars have short necks. Various types of knobs and handles appear
and are frequently used in this phase as seen at Ilıpınar IX-VIII. Boxes with cross-
hatched triangles are the most typical and ubiquitous element of this phase.
In this phase, at least at Ilıpınar, impressed pottery appears in the ceramic assemblage.
Above, we have compared these to Ulucak IV and Tell El-Kerkh impressed sherds. Very
similar impressed pieces have also been found at Yarımburgaz 5, together with mineral
tempered dark colored and red burnished wares. Presence of analogous impressed sherds
at Yarımburgaz 5 and Ilıpınar IX-VIII might be an indication of contemporaneity. The
low sample size from Yarımburgaz 5 impedes further examination. However the short-
term local production of impressed pottery at Ilıpınar IX-VIII is a very important
indication as to the transitional period from Archaic to Classical Fikirtepe phase. But
similar impressed wares also occur at Hacılar I, Bademağacı and Höyücek “Mixed
Accumulation” (Mellaart 1970; Duru 1996: Lev. 14 and Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pls.
95-96 respectively). Now we know that Central-West Anatolian sites such as Ulucak IV-
Va, Ege Gübre 3-4, Dedecik-Heybelitepe, Çukuriçi Höyük VIII and Yeşilova III.1-2, do
also have impressed wares. In Central-West Anatolia impressions can be applied either
on smoothed surfaces or on RSBW. Thissen (2001: 40-41) notes that at Ilıpınar
impressions are applied on burnished surfaces which poses a difference to Central-West
Anatolian specimens which are not necessarily executed on burnished surfaces.
Moreover, presence of red slipped wares in Classic Fikirtepe is intriguing in terms of
comparing Eastern Marmara with Western Anatolian contemporary cultures. At Pendik
and Yarımburgaz 5, they are obviously produced, though in low amounts, never
exceeding 10% of the assemblage (Özdoğan 2007: 413). Nevertheless, appearance of
impressed sherds and red slipped burnished examples may be pointing to increased
interaction of Northwest Anatolian communities with southern cultures, at least for a
short time.
383
According to Schoop (2005a: 222-223), chronological correlations of Classic Fikirtepe
phase can be established with Lake District sites by comparing the motifs applied on the
vessels, although decoration techniques in both regions differ fundamentally. Certain
motifs such as spirals, triangles, band combinations and arrangements can be found in
both regions indicating a common way of vessel decoration but by using different
techniques. Interestingly, sporadic occurrences of incised sherds with zig-zags or
triangles are known, for instance, from Hacılar I (Mellaart 1970: Pl. 109). As mentioned
above, Hacılar I also revealed several impressed decorated pots and sherds which are
also matched at Ilıpınar IX-VIII. Although no genuine Fikirtepe boxes have been found
at the Lake District sites, one rectangular footed vessel from Hacılar IIB and two
examples from EC Kuruçay is morphologically well comparable to Fikirtepe examples
(see Mellaart 1970: Pl. 70.12).
Özdoğan (2007: 413) suggests that Ilıpınar VIII, together with Yarımburgaz 4,
represents the ‘Developed Fikirtepe’ phase. In contrast to Archaic and Classic Fikirtepe
phases, Developed Fikirtepe phase presents no gradual developmental stages from the
previous one and its origins remains largely unknown. The jars with excised decoration
from Yarımburgaz 4 and Ilıpınar VIII are considered as a good indication for
contemporaneity, but jars with tapering long necks from Yarımburgaz 4 are absent at
Ilıpınar VIII. Interestingly, comparable jars have been found at Ilıpınar VB which is
dated to 5570-5490 cal. BCE (see van As et al. 2001: Figure 1.1; Thissen 2008a: Fig. 4.2
and 4.3). On the other side, Schoop gives attention to the similarity of the Hakendreieck
motif on vessels from Ilıpınar VIII and Yarımburgaz 4 as well as the ones painted on
bowls from Hacılar II (Schoop 2005a: Abb. 5.7). As mentioned above, according to him,
such similarities in the motif repertoire are signs of contemporaneity and interaction
between the North and South Anatolia. In accordance with Özdoğan, he suggests that
Yarımburgaz 4 and Ilıpınar VIII are more or less contemporary (Schoop 2005a: Abb.
5.6).
Ceramic sequence of post-Fikirtepe Culture is solely known from Ilıpınar and
Aktopraklık. At Ilıpınar, as we have seen, major changes in the ceramics do not occur in
phase VIII, but in phases VII-VI, where carinated bowls and square pots appear and
impressed wares and Fikirtepe boxes disappear. An abrupt change in the architecture has
only been observed at Ilıpınar VI where a line of adjacent mudbrick houses have been
excavated.
384
As already mentioned, carinated bowls are
new additions to the Ilıpınar’s ceramic
repertoire in VI-VA. Such bowls are not
known in the region, except at Yarımburgaz’s
unstratified deposits (see Özdoğan et al.
1990: Figure 12.9). They seem to be missing
at Ilıpınar VB, too (Thissen 2008a: 95). As
we stated above, this stage remains
unexplored in Central-West Anatolian
settlements. Comparable vessel shapes are
known, however, from Can Hasan 2B,
Hacılar 1 and Kuruçay 7 which are all dated
to first half of the 6th millennium BCE (Fig.
6.35). Ilıpınar VI and VA are dated to 5660-
5550 cal BCE which post-dates Hacılar I and
Can Hasan 2B (Roodenberg and Schier 2001:
269). It seems like such vessels were
produced until mid 6th millennium BCE at
Ilıpınar while what follows Hacılar I in the Lake District remains elusive to us.
Carinated bowls at Lake District sites are all red-on-cream painted whereas Ilıpınar
carinated bowls are occasionally grooved with linear shapes which are rarely white-
filled. In this respect, maybe Can Hasan 2B examples provide better comparisons since
they too may carry incisions and grooves which are white-filled.
Interestingly, Hacılar I, Kuruçay 7 and Can Hasan 2B are characterized by their
mudbrick houses with inner buttresses, and rectilinear houses with inner buttresses have
been detected at two İznik Lake Basin settlements: Ilıpınar VA and Aktopraklık. There
seems to be a good possibility that Ilıpınar VI-VA but also Aktopraklık Upper Höyük
belong to a similar chronological horizon with Kuruçay 7- Hacılar I and Can Hasan 2B,
although as we have seen above Ilıpınar VA post-dates all of these settlements. Can the
houses with inner buttresses be a late reflection of the same tradition in Northwest
Anatolia? Is there a correlation between the abandonment of Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7
and establishment of settlements in the North with similar architectural techniques? Such
questions remain unanswered for the time being, especially because we do not have a
Figure 6.35: Various carinated bowls. 1: Ilıpınar VI (after Thissen 2001: Fig. 64.3); 2: Yarımburgaz unstratified (after Özdoğan et al. 1991: Fig. 12.7; 3: Hacılar I (after Mellaart 1970: Pl. 120.9); 4: Kuruçay 7 (after Duru 1994: Lev. 169.4)
385
clue about what happens in the region in between, namely Inner-West Anatolia, at the
time when Ulucak IV, Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 are abandoned.
Another aspect which needs attention is the cooking pots with ledge handles on rim
which appear at Ilıpınar in phases VII-VA. Such cooking pots find their best parallels at
several Central Anatolian EC sites such as at Çatal West, Musular and Can Hasan 7-4. In
Lake District, Kuruçay 11Alt-8 and Höyücek “Mixed Accumulation” contained such
vessels (Duru 1994: Lev. 67 and 95; Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pl. 94). Moreover, similar
shapes appear at Büyük Güllücek, Kuşsaray and Güvercinkayası which indicate that
these cooking pots were continued to be produced in the Middle Chalcolithic, too
(Schoop 2005a). Cooking pots with horizontal lugs on rim are not present at Ulucak IVb,
however, very similar shapes with lugs right below the rim are attested at Ulucak IVb
(Fig. 6.36). In my opinion, these two types are representing the same trend in the pottery
production and points out that Ulucak IVb and Ilıpınar VII-VA are chronologically close
settlements.
Another common jar type in both regions is the ones with small vertical handles below
the rim. At Ilıpınar, these appear first in Phase VII and continue until VA (Thissen 2001)
Figure 6.36: Jars with small vertical handles and jars with horizontal knobs below the rim. 1-2: Ilıpınar VII-VI or VA- context not secure (after Thissen 2001: Fig. 61.1-2); 3: Ulucak IVb; 4: Ulucak IVd; 5: Menteşe stratum 1 (after Roodenberg 1999: Fig. 12.2); 6: Ilıpınar VA (after Thissen 2001: Fig. 68.6) 7: Ulucak IVb
386
while Stratum 1 of Menteşe revealed many rim fragments belonging to this jar type
(Roodenberg 1999). At Ulucak, similar jars have been detected in late phases of Level
IV (IVa-d). Presence of such jars at late Ulucak IV is another indication of similar
attitudes towards pottery production and function. According to Thissen (2001: 83-84),
sudden occurrence of vertical strap handles on jars is a reflection of a fundamental
change about the way in which vessels were handled and transported which can be
contrasted to the previous lugged vessels.
Schoop (2005a: 225) argues that monochrome traditions of Southwest Anatolia and
Archaic Fikirtepe (Basal Menteşe) are followed by painted pottery in the South and
incised pottery in the North, thus encompassing contemporary and parallel developments
expressed in different ways. He suggests, on relative and absolute chronological
grounds, that Archaic Fikirtepe, i.e. undecorated dark colored pottery, should be
contemporary with Hacılar pre-V horizon while the Classic Phase should fall into the
time range of Hacılar V-II and Kuruçay 12-7. Developed Fikirtepe phase, represented by
Yarımburgaz 4 and Ilıpınar VIII, might be contemporary with Hacılar II-I. As stated
above, the subsequent Ilıpınar phases are matched neither at Lake District nor in Central-
West Anatolia where a hiatus follows Ulucak IVa, Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7. In Central-
West Anatolia, Ulucak is abandoned following almost 1000 years of occupation. Thus,
post-5700 cal BCE is an enigmatic time period in both regions. Whatever caused the
abandonment of settlements in Lake District and Central-West Anatolia around 5700 cal.
BCE seems to have not affected Ilıpınar which is abandoned around 5500 cal. BCE, if
we exclude phase VB which is not a permanent settlement. The situation at Yarımburgaz
3-2 is too complicated and problematic in order to provide answers. Excavations at
Aktopraklık may provide some insights about the nature of 5500-5000 cal. BCE in the
region. Ultimately, in order to understand the situation between the Lake District,
Central-West Anatolia and Northwest Anatolia during this period, one has to excavate
corresponding deposits in Inner-West Anatolia.
J. Thrace Lower and Middle Paleolithic find spots have recently been spotted in Turkish and
Greek Thrace (Dinçer and Slimak 2007; Efstratiou 2005: 148) whereas Bulgarian Thrace
is almost devoid of such early sites, although Early and Middle Paleolithic occupations
have been located and extensively investigated on the southern slopes of Balkan
Mountains and Northeast Bulgaria (Ivanova and Sirakova 1995: 11).
387
Bacho Kiro is one of the major cave occupations occupied from around 50000 BP to the
Aurignacian period. Late Paleolithic occupation has also been documented at Temnata
Dupka Cave in northwest Bulgaria (Ivanova and Sirakova 1995). The typical Gravettian
assemblages, which follow the Aurignacian period, are characterized by retouched
blades, flakes, end-scrapers and backed blades while the micro-gravettes produced from
single platform cores appear with the middle Gravettian phase (Ivanova and Sirakova
1995: 26). Epi-Gravettian, 14000-10000 BP, is defined with a microlithic industry that
produces geometric tools and micro-burins (Kozlowski and Kaczanowska 2004: 6).
There seems to be no correlation between the Mesolithic and EN cultures of the region,
clearly indicated by the contrasting lithic industries (microliths vs. macro-blades),
interpreted as an indication of the arrival of a fully developed “Neolithic package”
(Gatsov 1995: 76; Gatsov 2005: 214).
One of the peculiarities of Thracian Neolithic sites is that they are composed of
settlement mounds which pose a contrast to the other regions in Bulgaria where the
horizontally expanding “open settlements” are generally found.
The prehistoric sequence of Thrace and Bulgaria in general has been identified by G.I.
Georgiev who defined six developmental stages of Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods
(Karanovo I-VI) in Bulgaria drawing on his excavations at Karanovo (Lichardus-Itten et
al. 2002: 15). Karanovo I (6000-5650 cal. BCE) and Karanovo II (5650-5450 cal. BCE)
constitute the “EN” period in Thrace, the former associated with red slipped fine pottery
with occasional white painting, tulip-shaped vases and triangular “offering tables”.
Karanovo II represents the end of red slipped horizon and with it, the transition to dark
colored burnished wares which are typically decorated with techniques such as
channeling or grooving. Karanovo II/III and III represent “Middle Neolithic” period in
Thrace which is characterized by beakers with horn-handles and shallow bowls with
inner-thickened decorated rims. Karanovo III/IV and IV periods comprise the LN period
in Thrace whose typical ceramic form is large bowl with sharply incurving upper
bodies.67 In general, there is a certain discrepancy between the developmental stages of
Karanovo Culture and contemporaneous Anatolian cultures from the very beginning of
the Neolithic period onwards.
67 For a summary of the entire Karanovo sequence see Krauß in press.
388
Good number of Karanovo I sites have been identified and excavated in Bulgarian
Thrace. The most prominent of these are Tell Azmak, Čavdar, Kapitan Dimitrievo,
Kazanlăk, Yabalkovo and Rakitovo (Nikolov 2004; also see Krauß in press: Abb. 9).
The data from Hoca Çeşme and Aşağı Pınar in Turkish Thrace display the wide
distribution zone of Karanovo Culture in the Eastern Thrace. Basal Hoca Çeşme is
especially important as it exclusively contains monochrome pottery prior to the
appearance of white-on-red painted pottery (Özdoğan 2007: 415). Hoca Çeşme is the
earliest settlement in Thrace with carbon determinations that are well beyond the 6000
cal. BCE threshold. Evidence of sites without the painted pottery has also been located at
Hamaylıtarla-Tekirdağ in southern Turkish Thrace, which has been identified as an EN
occupation with intensive polished axe production (for details see Erdoğu 2000 and
Özbek 2000).
The existence of a cultural horizon without the presence of white-on-red painted pottery
in Bulgaria, a so-called “monochrome phase” prior to Karanovo I is currently being
intensively debated. Few sites in the northeast Bulgaria, namely Koprivets, Polyanitsa-
Platoto and Pomoshtitsa, have been excavated on a small-scale, which yielded deposits
with unpainted pottery. Another site in the Struma Valley, Krainitsi, has also produced
unpainted pottery in its lowest deposits. Besides, presence of pre-6000 cal. BCE sites
with unpainted pottery is well-attested in Greece and Western Turkey. This led Todorova
(Todorova 1995: 81) as well as Chohadzhiev (2007) to propose existence of a pre-
Karanovo I horizon in Bulgaria. According to Todorova and Vajsov (1993: 277-278),
“monochrome phase” constitutes the earliest “Early Balkan Neolithic” (EBN) stage
which is followed by three additional developmental stages (EBN-A to C) until the “Late
Balkan Neolithic” (LBN) which is marked by the appearance of “Vinča Culture”.
This study is not in a position to solve this problem, nor will it support one view or the
other. Our impression is that presence of white paint assumes an overestimated role in
Bulgarian archaeology. The painting-oriented presentation of the ceramics in the
publications, despite their extremely low quantities, impedes the true understanding of
the EN cultures in Bulgaria. We have to note here that from an Anatolian point of view,
Karanovo I culture can hardly be termed a “painted pottery culture” as painted sherds do
not make up more than 3-13% of the assemblage (Lichardus-Itten 2002: 118; Macanova
2002). In my opinion, the real “painted pottery cultures” are found in the Lake District
where, for instance at Hacılar IV-I, painted pottery makes up 30-65% of the pottery
389
assemblage (Mellaart 1970). Another striking comparison comes from Tell Sabi Abyad
in Balikh Valley where painted pottery increases from 20% to 80% at the end of the 7th
millennium cal. BCE in few centuries (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: 9). In comparison to such
figures, it may be even more appropriate to term Karanovo I stage as the “monochrome
stage” in Bulgaria. It should be noted that Greek and Bulgarian Thrace is devoid of pre-
Karanovo I sites. In Greek part of Thrace, the earliest Neolithic settlements are from the
LN period around 5300-4900 cal. BCE (Andreou et al. 2001: 313; Gallis 1996b: Fig. 3).
However, several recent core drillings in the Greek Thrace on mounds suggest presence
of an EN horizon.68
As already mentioned above, southern Turkish Thrace houses a horizon which contains
exclusively RSBW, therefore at least for this area, one can make sure that a
Monochrome Phase exists. Besides, currently more than 35 sites from the entire
Southeast Europe have been attributed to the so-called Monochrome Phase (see Krauß in
press: Abb. 6). Secondly, the contrast in the different settlement patterns of
“monochrome” and “painted” phases has to be highlighted as the former prefers high
plateaus while the latter settle almost exclusively on well-watered alluvial plains or inter-
mountain plains (Özdoğan 2007b: 410; Thissen 2000: 193-194). Such a contrast in the
settlement patterns, admittedly, is not necessarily a proof of chronological differences
but may entail differing lifeways of contemporary communities. Obviously, more
problem-oriented research and carbon determinations are needed for conclusive results.
Below we will evaluate the archaeological evidence from several EN sites from Thrace
in order to compare and contrast their ceramics with Central-West Anatolia and
specifically with Ulucak.
1. Hoca Çeşme
Hoca Çeşme is located on the edge of a natural limestone hill overlooking the Aegean
Sea and the Maritsa (Meriç-Evros) Delta in district Enez-Edirne, southwestern tip of
Eastern Thrace. A freshwater spring is located on the western side of the hill which
might have been one of the reasons of occupation while the marshy surrounding
landscape and marine resources should have provided secure food resources for the
community. Özdoğan stresses the presence of a natural harbor 5 km west of Hoca Çeşme
68 The archaeological fieldwork mentioned here is presented by N. Efstratiou at the conference titled “New Research in the Appearence of the Neolithic between Northwestern Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin” held at German Archaeological Institute in Istanbul on 9.04.2009.
390
and the fact that Maritsa Delta towards Ergene was navigable upstream until recent times
as the historic record indicates (Özdoğan 1998b: 437).
The site measures ca. 80 x 70 m. It was discovered by S. Başaran in 1984 and has been
excavated in four successive seasons by M. Özdoğan of Istanbul University. The
publication of the material from the site is restricted to several short articles.
The excavations revealed seven occupational layers which are evaluated in terms of four
phases defined through ceramics and absolute dates. The latest occupation has been
damaged considerably by agricultural and construction activities which contained, apart
from prehistoric pottery, Roman and Medieval sherds (Özdoğan 1998b: 436).
The correlation of the layers with Hoca Çeşme phases is as follows:
Layer 1 Phase I ------HIATUS (?)------- Layers 2-4 Phase II Layers 5-6 Phase III Layer 7 Phase IV Fourteen carbon determinations are available from Hoca Çeşme Phases IV-II. Three
carbon dates obtained from Phase IV, Bln-4609 (7637±43), Grn-19779 (7360±35) and
GrN-19355 (7200±180), are important as they date the earliest Neolithic deposits known
from the entire Thrace (Özdoğan 1998b: 440). Combination of these three dates (OxCal
3.10) gives a range of 6400-6250 cal. BCE. However combination of samples from
Phase III provides a distribution from 5950 to 5700 cal. BCE. Despite the fact that
carbon dates are indicating a possible gap of 200 years, no hiatus whatsoever has been
recognized on the mound. Thissen (2005: 38) must have realized the same problem when
he interpreted the absolute chronology of the region and dated the basal Hoca Çeşme to
6000 cal. BCE (see also the ceramics discussion). Phase II can be dated to 5700 cal.
BCE in the light of five carbon dates. GrN-19356 (6520±110) from Phase II is however
interpreted as an intrusion from Level I and it covers a range from 5610-5360 cal. BCE
(Thissen 2002: 334, Reingruber and Thissen 2005: 322).
Layer 7 at Hoca Çeşme is comprised of circular semi-subterranean post buildings with
ca. 5 m diameter carved into the bedrock, and were evidently built 2 m in distance from
each other (Karul and Bertram 2005: 118). One structure with a yellow painted floor has
been excavated in this layer (Özdoğan 2007b: 415). Few storage pits carved deep into
the bedrock were also recovered.
391
Hoca Çeşme IV settlement is surrounded by a massive enclosure wall, 1.20 m thick and
was preserved up to 1 m height, whose purpose is interpreted as defensive by Özdoğan
who stresses the concentration of sling missiles around the wall (Özdoğan 1998b: 440).
The enclosure wall is used until the end of Phase II and is thought to have included a
palisade (Özdoğan 2007b: 415).
Layers 6-5, Phase III, is likewise characterized by round wattle-and-daub structures,
similar to the previous level, although they are not carved into the bedrock anymore. One
interesting architectural feature observed in Phase III is one large oval building (Building
3) whose floor has been paved with pebbles and then plastered and painted, once with
yellow and in a renewal phase, in red (Karul and Bertram 2005: 118).69
Özdoğan notes that despite their similarity in plan and building material, there is no
correlation between Fikirtepe and Hoca Çeşme IV-III architectural techniques, the latter
being substantial and a reflection of a developed architectural tradition (Özdoğan 1999a:
217). In a recent article, Özdoğan directs attention to the similarity of Hoca Çeşme
circular architecture with the buildings found in Cypriot pre-pottery Neolithic, thereby
questioning the possible origins of Hoca Çeşme architectural style, and ultimately the
community, in Cyprus (Özdoğan 2007b: 416).
Indeed, Cyprus is one of the few known localities in the Eastern Mediterranean where
circular-radial buildings were erected long after rectangular plans were laid out on the
mainland. Moreover, settlements such as Tenta and Khirokitia had massive enclosure
walls which date to 7500-5500 cal. BCE. According to Peltenburg, colonization of
Cyprus might have taken place during PPNA when mainland communities still erected
circular structures, which are maintained through millennia on the island as a result of
decreasing contacts with the mainland and an expression of insular ideology and
perhaps, resistance to change – as evidenced from absence of pottery until 5500 cal.
BCE (Peltenburg 2004). Co-existence of circular architecture and enclosure wall is
evidenced at two sites in West Anatolia: Hoca Çeşme and Ege Gübre. Özdoğan’s hint at
Cyprus, therefore, does seem to be very much in place for origins, although Ege Gübre
and Hoca Çeşme inhabitants produced and used pottery extensively and erected, along
circular ones, rectangular buildings. Co-existence of adjacent circular and rectangular 69 It should be noted here that Hoca Çeşme publications are contradicting as to which phase contained large building with painted floors. According to Özdoğan (1993) Phase II, according to Özdoğan (1998b) and Karul and Bertram (2005) Phase III, according to Özdoğan (2007b) Phases IV and III included large buildings with painted floors. We have considered here Karul’s dissertation on Hoca Çeşme architecture as the accurate source of information.
392
structures reminds us the typical architecture observed at Halaf sites such as Sabi Abyad,
Yarımtepe or Fıstıklı Höyük (Verhoeven and Kranendonk 1996: Fig. 2.7; Munchaev
1997: Fig. 3; Bernbeck and Pollock 2001: Fig. 2).
Phase II, with three sub-layers, is characterized by the introduction of the wattle-and-
daub rectangular buildings with plastered walls. Various architectural elements like
domed ovens, platforms and storage bins have been associated with these buildings.
Phase II ends with a fire.
Phase I is heavily destroyed, hence leaving no identifiable architectural features. Three
sub-layers are identified belonging to Phase I through ceramic data which include typical
features of Karanovo III, Karanovo III/IV and proto-Maritsa horizons (Özdoğan 1993:
183; Özdoğan 1998b: 449).
Typical finds from Hoca Çeşme IV-II is named as clay stamps, bone hooks, “M” shaped
amulettes, bone spatulas and sling missiles. Despite the presence of micro-blades, the
lithic industry is predominated by unspecialized blade and flake production and macro-
blades of Karanovo type produced on locally available quartz and quartzite (Özdoğan
2007b: 415; Gatsov 2009: 25). Gatsov (2005: 216) points out that Karanovo type lithic
industry is encountered in Hoca Çeşme II while the lithic production in general is similar
to neither Thracian nor Northwest Anatolian industries from EN. Some peculiarities of
the lithic production at Hoca Çeşme IV, such as lack of retouched tools, low number of
blades and the use of direct percussion technique differed from all the known industries
in the region from Ağaçlı to Karanovo and Ilıpınar-Menteşe group. Such observations,
considered together with the unusual settlement layout and architecture, seemingly
support the out-of-Anatolia origin of the first inhabitants at Hoca Çeşme.
The subsistence is dependent mainly on ovicaprines; additionally cattle are also present
and marine mollusks were extensively consumed (Buitenhuis 1995: 152-154).
1.1. Ceramics
The pottery from Hoca Çeşme IV-III is evaluated together as they are homogeneous in
fabric, although certain changes are observed in the morphology through time. Hoca
Çeşme IV-III produced wares that are mineral tempered (sand and mica), red or buff
paste colored, red-reddish brown slipped, well-burnished with bright surfaces. Red
slipped and burnished group is accompanied by black burnished wares which however
appear in lower percentages. The entire assemblage is composed of fine wares which
393
have 0.3 cm wall thicknesses in average. Mottling is frequently observed on pottery from
Phases IV-III while Coarse Wares are extremely rare in both phases, although slightly
increasing in phase III (Karul and Bertram 2005: 120-121; Özdoğan 1998b: 440).
The dominating vessel shapes are deep bowls with pronounced ‘s’-shaped profiles,
carinated bowls, small-medium sized hole-mouth and short necked jars (Fig. 6.37). The
‘s’-shaped profiles and carinated bowls are frequently accompanied with vertically or
diagonally placed tubular lugs, single knobs and pierced crescentic lugs which are placed
on the carination. Rims are beaded, everted or simple while flat, disc or ringed bases are
observed. Few fragments of zoomorphic vessels have also been found in these deposits
while bucrania shaped plastic applications are also seen in the assemblage (Karul and
Bertram 2005: Figs. 1-4; Özdoğan 1993: Fig. 4). It is noted that the carinated forms and
necked jars increase in Phase III. In terms of decoration, few incised and plastic
decoration are recovered from Phase IV and Phase III has more incised and stamped
decoration while few painted sherds (red-on-buff, black-on-red and red-on-black) and
negative painting have been found in Hoca Çeşme III deposits (Özdoğan 1998b: 440;
Özdoğan 2007b: 416).
Phase II, Levels 4-3, pottery assemblage displays significant new elements along with
the red and black burnished fine pottery encountered in the previous phases. First of all,
there is a tendency towards production of coarser and mat surfaced with red, reddish
brown, grey and buff colored, and black burnished pottery virtually dominates the
assemblage. It is also observed that intentional mottling is practiced. Secondly, for the
first time various painted ceramics are documented. These include red-on-cream, red-on-
black, white-on-black and white-on-red variants. The painted decorations are confined to
linear and geometric abstract motifs. Impressed and incised sherds are also considered
Figure 6.37: A typical bowl with sharp “S” profile from Hoca Çeşme IV-III (after Özdoğan 2007b: Fig. 21)
394
typical of this phase (Özdoğan 1998b: 448; Özdoğan 1993: 184). Especially in Level 3
painted decoration is almost absent but “impresso” decoration is encountered (Karul and
Bertram 2005: 125). Unfortunately, none of the so-called impressed sherds has been
illustrated in the publications.
In terms of vessel morphology, rectangular and triangular footed vessels (“boxes”) and
jars with funnel necks appear first in this phase (Karul 1994: 30-31). The bowls with ‘s’-
shaped profiles decrease sharply while large carinated bowls, plates with inner thickened
rims and convex profiled bowls are frequently found. Tulip shaped elongated vessels and
strap handles also appear in this phase (Özdoğan 2007b: 416).
As mentioned above, ceramics from Hoca Çeşme I, stemming from disturbed contexts
contained material from multiple periods ranging from Karanovo III-IV to proto-Maritsa
Culture corresponding to LN period in Southeast Europe. Surface roughened wares,
black burnished fluted wares, horn-handles and polypod vessels with incised and white
incrustation are among the major dateable surface material from the site. Özdoğan finds
parallel ceramic assemblages at Aşağı Pınar II-V and Toptepe (Özdoğan 1993: 183-185;
Özdoğan 2007b: 417).
1.2. Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
Karul and Bertram (2005: 127) suggest that Hoca Çeşme IV-III is contemporary with
Late Classical Fikirtepe (Pendik cemetery) and Yarımburgaz 5 as bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profiles and red slipped sherds were recovered at these sites. According to their
argumentation presence of a lunar shaped clay stamp from Pendik cemetery and Hoca
Çeşme should support this view. They also assert that Hoca Çeşme IV-III is earlier than
Hacılar IX and contemporary with Kuruçay 11-13.70
Özdoğan (2007b: 416) points out that Hoca Çeşme II material culture encompass all the
characteristics of a Karanovo I settlement whereas occupation layers preceding Phase II
display clear “Anatolian” elements, although architecture finds parallels not in Anatolia
but in Cyprus. The unusual nature of early deposits and its well-developed pottery as
well as some problems due to the carbon dates make it difficult to relative date basal
Hoca Çeşme.
70 According to our relative dating of Kuruçay this correlation is already problematic as Kuruçay 13-11 post-date Hacılar IX (see section D. Lake District). Also see the discussion below.
395
At first sight, there are enormous similarities between the Ulucak IV-V and Hoca Çeşme
Phase IV-III assemblages both in terms of fabrics and vessel shapes. Predominance of
fine red slipped burnished wares at both sites is one of the important common traits,
although “other wares” are not matched at all. The real RSBW dominated assemblage at
Ulucak is the late Level IV where 83% is composed of red slipped wares while the rest is
composed of cream slipped and burnished ware, gray and coarse wares. At Ulucak V,
RSBW is increasingly accompanied by CSBW and brown burnished wares. Cream
slipped wares and brown burnished wares are not known at Hoca Çeşme. In turn, fine
black burnished wares are absent at Ulucak. One can assume that the absence of cream
slipped and brown burnished at Hoca Çeşme might be a result of regional traditions.
Therefore, we will have to restrict ourselves to indicate that Ulucak IV and Hoca Çeşme
IV pottery production is highly analogous only with respect to the RSBW production.
One major difference between Ulucak and Hoca Çeşme red slipped wares is the presence
of organic temper at Ulucak IV whereas at Hoca Çeşme chaff is not used as tempering
material in any of the layers. It is known that there is regional variability as to the use of
mineral vs. organic temper in pottery. In Central-West Anatolia, chaff is recorded at
Ulucak IV and Yeşilova Late while mineral temper is ubiquitously found at each site in
the region. The difference in the tempering material at both sites seems to be related to
local pottery production tradition than to chronological implications.
In terms of the vessel morphology bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles with single knobs on
the belly is a feature of Ulucak IVb assemblage and matches well with the Hoca Çeşme
IV-III phases. Tubular lugs are also common to both sites, although the long-thin variant,
typical of Ulucak V, is not found at basal Hoca Çeşme. Bead-rim, a frequent feature at
basal Hoca Çeşme, is rarely found at Ulucak IVb, but definitely not absent. Certainly,
bead-rims were more popular in Northern Aegean as evidenced not only from Hoca
Çeşme but also at Uğurlu on Gökçeada and Hamaylıtarla in Tekirdağ. One important
difference between the ceramic assemblages is the complete absence of crescentic lugs at
Ulucak. The knobs or lugs on carination, as observed on Hoca Çeşme IV-III pottery,
reminds us the Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 bowls, but the latter are apparently younger than
Hoca Çeşme IV-III specimens. Jars without necks and jars with short necks are found
both at Ulucak and Hoca Çeşme in the entire sequence, thus not of help for relative
dating but imply similar trends in pottery production.
396
In terms of relative dating, the development of necked jars can be used as a telling
characteristic. It seems like jars with larger sizes and long necks appear only with phase
III at Hoca Çeşme while they become more numerous in Phase II. At Ulucak, they
likewise appear late in the sequence, virtually not appearing before IVg. Development of
jar necks might be indicative of chronological correlation as they do not appear in the
early deposits at both sites. In other words, Hoca Çeşme IV, without the long necked
jars, might correlate better with Early Level IV at Ulucak whereas jars with funnel necks
of Hoca Çeşme III-II may correlate better with late Ulucak IV (IVb specifically).
There is one major vessel form which might speak against this correlation: carinated
bowls. At Hoca Çeşme, they are increasingly encountered in layers belonging to Phase
III. If we are to suggest that Ulucak IVb might be contemporary with Hoca Çeşme III
due to the presence of jars with long necks, we should be able to find carinated bowls at
Ulucak to support our view. As we discussed before, carinated bowls do not appear at
Ulucak IV, although a tendency towards carination can be recognized on oval bowls
with ‘s’-shaped profiles. Interestingly, majority of the EC sites in Anatolia such as
Hacılar, Kuruçay, Çatal West and Ilıpınar, contain such forms and carination is one of
the best defined characteristics of EC pottery assemblages in Turkey. Their total absence
at Ulucak IVb, dated to ca. 5800-5700 cal. BCE, is simply puzzling. Beyond that, it
remains unclear whether Ulucak IV has been abandoned prior to the development of
carinated forms or such bowls were not produced in the region at all, as all the currently
known LN-EC Central-West Anatolian sites were abandoned in the beginning of EC
which prevents the construction of the ceramic sequence during the EC beyond 5700 cal.
BCE. This discussion brings us to the point where we cannot conclude Ulucak IVb is
earlier than Hoca Çeşme Phase III, due to the contradicting situation related to long
necked jars on the one hand and carinated bowls on the other. We may however hint that
Hoca Çeşme II type carinated bowls are well-documented at Ilıpınar VI-VA, which is
securely dated to 5627-5584 cal. BCE, thus post-dating the final occupation at Ulucak
IV.
What is puzzling about the Hoca Çeşme assemblage is the absence of pots with ledge
handles on the rims (“cooking pots”) which show a widespread distribution in Central
and Northwest Anatolia including Ilıpınar. At Ulucak, similar forms are also found,
although the lugs are not placed right on the rim but just below it. Absence of pots with
397
ledge handles at Hoca Çeşme is intriguing but might also be result of local variation or
unrepresentative publication.
Although detailed information on impressed wares are not provided in the reports, they
are primarily associated with Hoca Çeşme II. It is understood that, in contrast to Ulucak
IV, Çukuriçi and Ege Gübre, impressed wares never become a significant element in the
Hoca Çeşme sequence. Despite Hoca Çeşme’s littoral situation, the site seems to have
remained out of the distribution zone of impressed wares. This is especially surprising
when one considers the presence of impressed wares at Ilıpınar IX-VIII and
Yarımburgaz 5. A direct comparison of Hoca Çeşme and Ulucak impressed wares are
not possible as these are not included in the publications of Hoca Çeşme.
The “boxes” from Hoca Çeşme, rectangular or triangular with incised and excised
decorations, which appear with Phase II and continue into phase I find no parallels in
Central-West Anatolia, nor the decoration techniques applied on them. At Ilıpınar,
“Fikirtepe-type” boxes disappear with Level VII-VI, however, excisions and white-filled
incisions as decoration type are especially associated with Ilıpınar VII-VA and
Yarımburgaz 4. In Southeast Europe triangular and rectangular footed vessels are
produced until circa 5000 cal. BCE (Schwarzberg 2005).
Finally, the issue of painted wares needs to be raised here. As it is known, LN-EC
ceramics of Central-West Anatolia include very few painted sherds. For instance, at
Ulucak, 16 painted sherds of cream-on-red or red-on-cream type have been found
between levels IVa-Vb. It is indicated that at Hoca Çeşme “few” painted sherds which
show a high variety have been recovered. Hoca Çeşme painted wares are rightly
associated with Karanovo I-II and Starčevo painted pottery groups as it includes both
white-on-red and red-on-black examples. What is however worth repeating the low
quantity of painted wares in all phases, and their final disappearance in Level 3 of Phase
II which is an implication of predominance of monochrome wares, whether red or black
burnished, during the entire sequence. Disappearance of painted wares in Level 3 and
increase in black burnished wares might well correspond to the disappearance of white-
on-red painted pottery with Karanovo II around 5700-5500 cal. BCE.
To summarize, there are important common elements between Ulucak IV and Hoca
Çeşme IV-III: dominance of RSBW, ‘s’-shaped profiles, major jar forms, tubular lugs
and plastic decoration. On the other hand, carinated bowls, crescentic lugs, incised and
398
white-filled decoration, grooving, most paint combinations observed at basal Hoca
Çeşme are not matched in Central-West Anatolia because they are not among the local
ceramic traits. Our discussion also revealed that Hoca Çeşme Level 4 (Phase II)
encompasses multiple features of Karanovo I assemblages while Layer 3 (Phase II)
represents the transitional period from Karanovo I to II, which post-dates the final
occupation at Ulucak IV. In the light of Hoca Çeşme II’s dating to Karanovo I-II
transition, it is possible to suggest that Hoca Çeşme III, with the carinated bowls and
developed jars, belongs to the beginning of sixth millennium BCE whereas Hoca Çeşme
IV, with fine red slipped bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and tubular lugs and jars with
short necks, cannot be earlier than 6200-6000 cal. BCE.
In contrast to our first impression, it proved to be difficult to pinpoint strong
resemblances between Ulucak and Hoca Çeşme. Our correlation of Hoca Çeşme and
Ulucak which rely on the detailed comparison of pottery fabrics and shapes contradict
with the carbon determinations, which imply that Hoca Çeşme IV should be
contemporary with Ulucak Vb-f. However certain wares and forms associated with pre-
6100 cal. BCE deposits from Ulucak and Menteşe Höyük lack at basal Hoca Çeşme.
Both the fabrics (fine RSBW and jet-black burnished wares) and vessel shapes (tendency
to carination, crescentic lugs, developed jar forms and bead-rims) necessitate dating of
this assemblage to the end of LN-beginning of EC period around 6200-6000 cal. BCE. In
other words, the ceramic assemblage, both fabrics and forms, are too developed to
belong to an earlier horizon. At this point, we may point out that basal Hoca Çeşme has
been dated to 6000 cal. BCE by Thissen (2005: 38) who suggests that Phases III and II
should cover a period from 5900 to 5800 cal. BCE. Although an explanation of his
interpretation of the Hoca Çeşme carbon dates is lacking in his article, our ceramic
comparisons come to a similar conclusion with Thissen’s.
Our conclusions also challenge Karul and Bertram’s (2005: 127) suggestion that Hoca
Çeşme IV should date earlier than Hacılar IX. My suggestion is that basal Hoca Çeşme
might rather be contemporary with Hacılar VI-V as the dominance of fine RSBW,
transition to painted wares, carination on bowls and production of developed jar forms
do not appear prior to Hacılar VI which is appropriately dated to 6000 cal. BCE.
When we inspect the other material cultural elements at Hoca Çeşme as a source of
additional help in relative dating, it is difficult to detect time-specific find groups. Bone
spoons, bone polishers, clay stamps and “M” shaped amulettes are originating from
399
Phases IV-II and are found in Anatolia from LN to EC, and in the entire EN of Southeast
Europe. Architecture is likewise not helpful, as it is remarkably different from all the
other architectural remains from West and Northwest Anatolia. The only circular house
plans and enclosure wall known in West Anatolia come from Ege Gübre, but at this site
circular buildings co-exist with the rectilinear architecture and it is not clear whether
circular structures were used as dwellings. Correlation of the architectural building
techniques seems to be possible only for Hoca Çeşme Phase II which is parallel to
Karanovo I buildings from Thrace. As Özdoğan (2007: 416) emphasizes, Hoca Çeşme
becomes a genuine “Balkan” settlement with Phase II. The origins of pre-Hoca Çeşme II
may lie somewhere in the Aegean or even in the Eastern Mediterranean, perhaps in
Cyprus. The circular massive structures, enclosure wall as well as the evidence of
painted floors at the site imply Levantine-Cypriot origins for the community who
founded the settlement.
2. Aşağı Pınar
Aşağı Pınar is a prehistoric mound located on the southern slopes of Istranca Mountains
in the upper Ergene Basin in province Kırklareli. The location of the mound provides
natural access to Maritsa-Tunca Basins as well as to Eastern Marmara Region. The
prehistoric occupational levels on the mound are investigated since 1993 by a joint
Turkish-German team. So far on the mound nine occupational layers covering periods
Early, Middle and Late Neolithic (in Southeast European terms) are exposed. Results of
the excavations until 1998 that concentrated on the archaeological material from Levels
1-5 were published in two monographs (Karul et al. 2003; Parzinger and Schwarzberg
2005). The analysis and excavations concerning Layers 7-8, the EN deposits, continue to
date and are only preliminarily published.
Currently the periodization of the mound deposits is as follows:
1-5: Middle-Late Neolithic Karanovo III-IV
5-6: EN-MN transition Karanovo II/III
6-7: EN Karanovo I-II
8: EN pre-Karanovo I (?)
For our purposes, archaeological data from Levels 8-6 are treated here. Levels 2-5,
which reflect a gradual cultural development, are beyond the chronological concerns of
this study.
400
Deposits of Level 8 have been located at the site through deep sondages which revealed
scatters of structural stones (Özdoğan, E. and Schwarzberg 2008: 20-21).
Level 7 at Aşağı Pınar contains a 1 m deep ditch and plastered floors. Unfortunately, the
positive architectural features are lacking as deposits of Level 6 destroyed the remains
from this previous level.71 It is not yet clear whether the ditch was completely
surrounding the settlement and what purpose it served (Özdoğan 2007b: 418).
Level 6 at Aşağı Pınar is characterized by adjacent rectilinear wattle-and-daub structures
that form a radial plan, highly resembling to Ilıpınar VI settlement layout. The houses
were probably paved with wooden beams which are covered with mats, the evidence of
which was extensively found in the burnt deposits belonging to this occupation
(Özdoğan 2007b: 418). It was observed that the houses contained domed ovens, fire
installations as well as various storage facilities and evidence for extensive cereal storage
(Özdoğan, E. 2007). A cluster of eleven ‘altars’ were recovered in one of the houses and
one of the rooms in the excavated area contained column-like features made out of daub
(Özdoğan 2007b: 419; Figs. 34-35).
Layer 6 ends with a fierce fire, which is interpreted as a non-accidental event by
Özdoğan, who suggests that intentional burning and burying of houses, already
evidenced in Southeast Anatolia and Southeast Europe, might have been practiced at
Aşağı Pınar (Özdoğan 2007b: 419).
Parzinger points out that Level 6 poses differences in terms of the ceramic fabric and
forms to the subsequent layers which might even be a result of a short hiatus (Parzinger
and Schwarzberg 2005: 41). Discovery of transitional phases, Layer 5-6, in the recent
years undermined the possibility of a hiatus on the mound and confirmed the presence of
the cultural stage termed Karanovo II/III at Aşağı Pınar (Özdoğan 2007b: 417).
Well-made bone spatula and bone polishers are typical elements of Aşağı Pınar material
culture. Archaeobotanical analysis confirms the fully-fledged farming community
character of Aşağı Pınar 6 inhabitants who cultivated wheat, barley and pulses (Özdoğan
2007b).
Nine carbon determinations are available from Layer 6 and one additional cereal sample
has been taken from Layer 6/7 (Bln-4997) (Özdoğan 2007b: 420-421; also see Görsdorf
71 This information is kindly provided by Eylem Özdoğan (27.03.09).
401
in Parzinger and Schwarzberg 2005) which provides 5730-5620 cal. BCE (95.4%
probability). The sum of nine carbon dates from Layer 6 provides 5840-5510 cal. BCE
(95.4%) and 5710-5560 (68.2%). These measurements indicate that Layer 6 might well
be dated to 5800-5600 cal. BCE in rough terms. Yet earlier levels on the mound need to
be dated properly but it is suggested that Level 8 may contain material which dates back
to 6400/6300 cal. BCE (Özdoğan, E. and Schwarzberg 2008: 20-21).
2.1. Ceramics
The description of pottery from Layers 6-7 in this section draws predominantly on the
information provided by Parzinger (in Parzinger and Schwarzberg 2005) and Özdoğan
(2005; 2007b).
Ceramics from Layer 6 includes a variety of features which are associated with
Karanovo II sequence. Surface roughened and dark colored burnished wares dominate
the fabrics while RSBW is represented in lower quantities. Decorated wares are rare.
Restricted amounts of white-on-red painted sherds showing mainly linear motifs were
also recovered in these deposits. Channeled and white-filled incised decoration has been
observed on low number of sherds which are, however, easily differentiated from the
same kind of decorated pottery from the upper layers 1-5. In terms of vessel shapes, tulip
shaped vases with pedestal bases, jars with short necks, jars without necks and bowls
with flaring convex profiles are worth mentioning. Mat impressions on the outer surfaces
of bases are also common (Özdoğan 2005: Figs. 3-5; Parzinger and Schwarzberg 2005:
Taf. 116-117).
Extensive information on the pottery from Levels 7 and 8 is not published yet. Level 7
pottery includes more RSBW as well as white-on-red vessels, posing a contrast to the
following layer and reflects typical Karanovo I features. Pottery found in debris defined
as Level 8 proves to be dominated by dark colored and burnished fine-medium wares
with ‘s’-shaped profiles and everted rims (Özdoğan, E. and Schwarzberg 2008: 21).
Özdoğan (2007b) correlates Aşağı Pınar 6 with Karanovo II and Aşağı Pınar 7 with
Karanovo I assemblages as defined in Bulgarian Thrace. Parallel to Özdoğan, Parzinger
suggests that Aşağı Pınar 6 is contemporary with Yarımburgaz 2 and Ilıpınar VI-VA
(Parzinger and Schwarzberg 2005: Abb. 17). Both fabrics, especially fine red slipped
wares and white-on-red paint, as well as the vessel shapes, especially the tulip-shaped
vases, the Leitform of Karanovo I-II phases, are encountered in the assemblage. These do
402
not only provide reliable chronological links with Bulgarian EN sites but also manifest
the involvement of Eastern Thrace in the distribution zone of Karanovo Culture.
Özdoğan (2007b: 421) stresses that Aşağı Pınar was not a peripheral Karanovo
settlement but played a role in the emergence and development of Thracian EN cultures.
The data and carbon dates which will be obtained from Level 8 in the coming years are
extremely important with regards to the questions on the mechanisms and timing of the
neolithization of Thrace.
2.2. Comparisons with Ulucak Ceramics
Comparison of Ulucak ceramic assemblage with Aşağı Pınar 8-6 can only be made in the
light of restricted published data from the latter site. According to the carbon dates,
Aşağı Pınar 6 can well be correlated with terminal Ulucak occupations IVb-a. Aşağı
Pınar 7 may roughly correspond to Ulucak IV while Aşağı Pınar 8 with dark burnished
wares may indeed be analogous to Ulucak Vb-f ceramics with ever increasing brown
burnished wares. It has to be noted that the existence of a pre-red slipped ware stratum in
Thrace was not anticipated by the researchers. New data on Aşağı Pınar 8 has the
potential to force archaeologists to re-consider the theories on neolithization process in
Thrace which seem to have begun much earlier than it was assumed. Secondly, the
presence of dark burnished wares in Level 8 may also provide clues on the origins of
early farming groups who decided to occupy Thracian Plain. It is known that dark
burnished wares are typical for Çatalhöyük VIII-IV and basal Menteşe, sites which date
around 6600-6400 cal. BCE. Especially, dark burnished wares with ‘s’-shaped profiles
are well-known from basal Menteşe. It seems now possible that groups with Central
Anatolian origins may have dispersed towards Northwest as far as Eastern Thrace
already around mid 7th millennium cal. BCE. Testing of this suggestion must await the
new results from the site.
Apart from the very general similarities observed on bowls and jars, the most striking
similarity between the both sites is related to the fine quality and high quantity of
RSBW, especially observed in Layer 7 at Aşağı Pınar. There is no need to point out that
typical Karanovo elements like tulip-shaped vases, pedestal bases and white-on-red paint
are not represented at Ulucak. Similarly, black burnished wares (with or without grooves
and incisions) are also completely absent at Ulucak.
403
3. Karanovo
Karanovo is a 12.4 m high prehistoric mound (250 x 180 m) located on the southern
bank of Azmak, a tributary of Maritsa, close to modern settlement Nova Zagora on
Thracian Plain, close to the foothills of Sredna Gora mountain range. The geographical
location enabled the inhabitants of Karanovo to exploit resources from open grasslands
and woodland. The mound is one of the largest in the entire Thrace and has been initially
excavated between 1947-1957 by V. Mikov and G.I. Georgiev. The southern section of
the site (“Südsektor”) has been subject to large-scale excavations in years 1984-1992 by
a joint Austrian-Bulgarian team which was supervised by S. Hiller and V. Nikolov. The
recent excavations brought minor re-arrangements to Georgiev’s periodization, although
to a large extent, Karanovo sequence remained intact and valid. According to current
periodization, Karanovo I and Karanovo II encompass EN period whereas new defined
Karanovo II/III phase represents “Middle Neolithic”. Nikolov and Hiller published the
results in two volumes in 1997 which will be used as primary source of information.
The excavation of the Neolithic remains distinguished 13 super-imposed layers at the
site, of which the lowermost three, ca. 0.75-1 m thick, belong to the Karanovo I period
(Nikolov 1997: 50). In total, eight buildings have been identified in the three building
layers which show common general traits. The buildings have quasi-square shape which
was reconstructed by following the post-holes. The structures, mostly one roomed, were
built of wattle-and-daub walls which are 20-25 cm thick without stone foundations.
Houses contain remains of domed ovens, loam storage facilities, storage jars, grinding
instruments and platforms. An open-area paved with small pebbles which contained
various midden areas has also been identified (Hiller 1997: 65-66).
The lithic industry is dominated by retouched blades, flakes, sickle elements and end-
scrapers made out of high quality flint. Very few cores from Karanovo I deposits have
been analyzed which can be classified as blade cores. It is noted that production of
“macro-blades” was of primary concern to Karanovo I-II community (Gürova 2004:
246). Biconical sling bullets, bone spatula, bone polishers, awls, needles, polished axes,
clay stamps, “offering tables” and few figurines constitute the EN material culture from
the site (Hiller and Nikolov 1997).
The subsistence is based on ovicaprines and to a lesser extent cattle and pig. Hunting
played a secondary role in the subsistence economy which is dominated by fallow deer
(Dama dama), red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild pig (Sus scrofa) and various mammals.
404
Exploitation of secondary animal products is held plausible (Bökönyi and Bartosiewicz
1997: 401). Cultivated plants were einkorn wheat (Triticum monoccocum), emmer wheat
(Triticum dicoccum), durum wheat (Triticum durum), bread wheat (Triticum aestivum),
barley (Hordeum) and pulses like lentil (Lens culinaris) and peas (Pisum sativum)
(Thanheiser 1997).
Nine carbon determinations are available from Level I which covers roughly 6000-5750
cal. BCE whereas Karanovo II dates to 5750-5500 cal. BCE (Görsdorf 1997: Tab.19.1).
3.1. Ceramics
As the carbon dates indicate, the earliest occupation at Karanovo dates to round 6000
cal. BCE which might be contemporary with Ulucak Early IV. Karanovo I period on the
mound is probably contemporary with Ulucak IV. Karanovo II typical characteristics are
not represented at Ulucak IV, although short-term overlapping cannot be ruled out. This
section draws on the ceramics report written by V. Nikolov who analyzed around 4000
samples (Nikolov 1997: 105-146).
Nikolov emphasizes the gradual technological development throughout the Karanovo I-
IV phases. The general developmental tendency can be observed in two aspects: non-
plastic inclusions and surface colors. From Karanovo I to IV, size of the non-plastic
inclusions increase, organic non-plastic inclusions are encountered and increase in darker
surface colors are clearly observed (Nikolov 1997: 111).
Nikolov distinguished nine fabric groups encompassing Karanovo I-IV periods. Of
these, four are observed during Karanovo I period. These are red slipped ware (rot-
engobierte Keramik), Grey Ware (graue Keramik), Brown Ware (braune Keramik) and
Coarse Ware (grobe Keramik). Unfortunately, quantitative analysis and information is
lacking in the report.
Red slipped wares are peculiar to Karanovo I and are not observed in the overlying
deposits. As the name implies, red slipped ware is characterized by its surface treatment
which can show red, dark red, orange, reddish brown slip over the both surfaces which is
smoothed and burnished. The paste, which normally shows three-layers and inoxidized
center, is tempered with small size quartz particles, although rarely organic inclusions
are also documented. White painting, on the outer or inner surfaces, is rarely
documented. Previous excavations also identified dark colored painted sherds (Nikolov
1997: 142).
405
Grey Ware is documented
in Karanovo I and in
increasing quantities in
Karanovo II. It is mineral-
organic tempered, lightly
burnished and dark colored
(dark grey, black, brown).
The biscuit mostly shows
grey-black colored single
layer. Organic inclusions
leave tiny pores on the
surface. Decoration is very
seldom. Channeled,
excised and white-filled
incised decoration types
have been observed on few specimens.
Brown colored ware is likewise found exclusively in Karanovo I-II layers. Paste includes
organic non-plastic inclusions whose size increases in Karanovo II from 1 to 1.5-2 mm.
The surface colors range from different tones and shades of brown. The surface is
typically smoothed or lightly burnished whereas relief and channeled decoration can be
found on the outer surface.
Finally, coarse wares are known from Karanovo I. The paste is grey-black or reddish
brown colored, single layered, mineral-organic tempered and the surface is lightly
smoothed or roughened. Decorated specimens include bands in relief, punctuated or
excised motifs. Coarse ware is mainly associated with closed shapes like pots.
Pottery from Karanovo II levels are comprised of graue Keramik, braune Keramik and
grobe Keramik. In this phase, red slipped wares are not observed anymore. Dark colored
wares with burnishing or smoothing are manufactured increasingly. With Karanovo II/III
the so-called “graue-schwarze Keramik” together with dark brown and reddish brown
wares constitutes the pottery assemblage.
In terms of vessel shapes from Karanovo I layers certain typical forms are frequently
found in the assemblage. Tulip-shaped vases with 14-20 cm rim diameter and 25-30 cm
Figure 6.38: Various vessel shapes from Karanovo I (modified after Hiller and Nikolov 1997: Taf. 65-66)
406
height may occur on red slipped, gray and brown wares (Fig. 6.38). Tulip-shaped vases
normally have pedestal bases which may be 10-20 cm high. Most of the red slipped
tulip-shaped vases are white painted, however, channeled decoration is also found on
some vases. Paint might have been executed in cross-hatched triangles, net motif or
diagonal-vertical lines.
Another typical ceramic shape for this horizon is the so-called “offering table”. 27
fragments have been uncovered during the recent excavations, all of which may belong
to triangular variant of “offering tables”. All of the specimens are dark colored and
smoothed on the outer surface. The small size of the fragments inhibits identification of
original forms for most specimens. Most fragments show incisions and excisions which
may be white-filled. The motifs comprise triangles, meanders, checker-boards and half-
circles (Gauß 1997: 237-239).
Jars with spherical bodies, short necks and four lugs are associated with Grey and Brown
Wares. Beakers, jars with vertical or everted necks, bowls with flaring, ‘s’-shaped or
convex profiles, basins, “pipes” and lids complete the Karanovo I assemblage. Rims are
mainly simple, everted or flattened. Bases are flat, disc, ring or pedestal. Vertical tubular
lugs and strap handles are found in the assemblage too. Tubular lugs are mainly
associated with globular jars with necks.
Karanovo II assemblage also contains tulip-shaped vessels which are, however, not red-
slipped and burnished (or white-painted) anymore. They appear with channeled
decoration and dark burnished surface colors. Jars with spherical bodies and funnel
necks, beakers, pots, large deep bowls and large bowls with flaring sides are typical
vessel shapes manufactured during the Karanovo II horizon at the site. Bowls make up
41% of the assemblage and some have diameters reaching up to 44 cm. Flat, ring,
pedestal and high-ring bases, tubular-pierced lugs, relied bands with finger impressions
can be considered characteristic of this horizon. Pedestal bases with windows are
observed in the assemblage. Besides, impressed vessels with nail impressions are also
known in the Karanovo II assemblage.
3.2. Comparisons with Ulucak
According to Nikolov (1997: 141-143), Karanovo I layers from Tell Karanovo is not
encompassing the earliest Karanovo I layers in Bulgaria. These are represented in
Elešnica and Sofia-Slatina while Karanovo falls into the developed phase of Karanovo I
407
sequence. Developed phase of Karanovo I is additionally found at sites like Rakitovo,
Kazanlăk and Azmak in Thrace which correspond to Starčevo-Phase in northern
Southeast Europe and Pre-Sesklo on mainland Greece.
The ceramics and material culture from Karanovo I layers of Tell Karanovo is at first
sight very reminiscent of Ulucak IV. Basically, the clay stamps, biconical sling missiles,
bone spatula, bone polishers etc. are found commonly at both sites. Apparently, these
find groups have widespread distributions from Central Anatolia to mainland Greece and
their presence at Karanovo I is not truly surprising. Nevertheless, it is an indication of
rough contemporaneity on the one hand and similar socio-economical organization on
the other. The architecture from Karanovo I is highly similar to the wattle-and-daub
structures of Ulucak V which are replaced by substantial rectangular mud-brick houses
at the end of Level IV.
With regards to ceramic fabrics and shapes, there are both convergent and divergent
features. The presence of fine red slipped wares at both sites is worth mentioning.
Obviously, Karanovo was settled at a time when red slipped wares were still produced in
high quantities and with great care, a phenomenon best documented at Lake District and
Central-West Anatolian sites such as Ulucak. The small sized mineral and organic
inclusions are also matched at Ulucak IVb, where 76% of red slipped wares included
chaff inclusions. Similar to the red slipped wares at Karanovo I, at Ulucak, too,
incompletely oxidized cores with three layers are very common. 71% of red slipped
wares from Ulucak IVb have either completely inoxidized or incompletely oxidized
cores. Clearly, such technological features are not peculiar to Karanovo and Ulucak, thus
cannot be construed as an indication of direct contacts; but perhaps as a manifest of
common technological level of Neolithic ceramics in the beginning of sixth millennium
cal. BCE in both regions.
Other ware groups which are listed by Nikolov such as Grey Ware and Brown Ware
might be matched at Ulucak in general, but these fabrics are ubiquitously found during
the Neolithic. However, quasi-absence of coarse wares at Ulucak IV-V contradicts with
the presence of coarse wares at Karanovo. We have actually defined a certain Gray Ware
at Ulucak IV, which is gray-brown colored, medium ware with self-slip and no
burnishing. Gray Wares from Ulucak IV are mainly associated with impressed
decoration, which lacks at Karanovo I, therefore it is suspicious whether Gray Ware of
Ulucak and graue Keramik of Karanovo I is the same fabric. Interestingly, a number of
408
impressed sherds have been found in Karanovo II deposits along with other decoration
types. These examples are similar to Ulucak IV impressed wares which correspond to
“Impresso A” horizon as defined by Müller (1988). Presence of analogous impressed
wares from Karanovo II and Ulucak IV may be important as to the contemporaneity of
these horizons. At Ulucak, impressed wares are encountered roughly between 6000-5700
cal. BCE whereas they appear at Karanovo only with phase II which is dated around
5760-5520 cal. BCE (Görsdorf 1997: Tab. 19.1). In the light of carbon dates and ceramic
data (impressed wares specifically) it becomes clear that the impact of impressed wares
did not arrive in Thrace at the very beginning of 6th millennium cal. BCE. There was
apparently some delay, despite the fact that impressed wares have been produced, albeit
infrequently, in the Central-West Anatolia. There seems to be a slight overlap between
Late Ulucak IV and Early Karanovo II. However, certain developed shapes, such as
pedestal bases with windows or bowls with large diameters, are never observed at
Ulucak. We know that such features are observed in the developed phases of EC (such as
at Hacılar I) which is not represented on Ulucak mound.
Fine CSBW of Ulucak IV are definitely not encountered at Karanovo.
Decoration types are also very different at both sites. White-paint, channeling,
punctuation, excisions, relief in bands and white-filled incisions are simply not known at
Ulucak IV. Surface-roughened pottery is also absent at Ulucak. Similarly, painted sherds
are likewise almost absent and when they appear they are of “red-on-cream” type,
certainly not white painted.
The vessel forms from both sites are basically very similar, but again like the material
cultural elements, these forms are found in a vast area, reflecting a common approach
towards ceramic production, food preparation, storage and technological level.
Nevertheless, bowls with convex profiles, bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and jars with
vertical or everted necks are commonly found at Karanovo I and Ulucak IV. Base types,
except the pedestal and high-ring bases, and rim types are also similar. Especially
globular necked jars with vertical tubular lugs from both sites are almost identical to
each other. On the other hand, tulip-shaped vases, pedestal bases and “pipes” are not
found at Ulucak IV. In turn, typical thick flattened rims of Central-West Anatolia,
various lug-knob types and oval forms are not matched at Karanovo I-II.
409
We should not, however, ignore the fact that a number of typical Karanovo I features are
not foreign to Anatolian sites. Pedestal bases are known at Hacılar IV-II, Kuruçay 11,
Höyücek Sanctuaries Phase, Çatal West, Erbaba I-II, Tepecik-Çiftlik 3 and basal
Menteşe (Mellaart 1970; Duru 2007; Duru and Umurtak 2005; Mellaart 1965; Bıçakçı et
al. 2007; Roodenberg et al. 2003 respectively). Pedestal bases with windows are also
encountered at Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7. Appearance of pedestal bases in Anatolia seems
to have occurred in the later stages of EC towards the middle of the 6th millennium cal.
BCE. The so-called “pipes” are known from Ilıpınar VIII (Thissen 2001). Lids, although
absent in Central-West Anatolia, are one of the typical features of Fikirtepe sites (see
Özdoğan 2007b).
The so-called “offering tables” are documented at Ulucak IV but their fabrics and forms
are not comparable to the Karanovo I specimens. Moreover, Ulucak offering tables are
not decorated. The so-called cult tables have a wide distribution and common traits are
lacking between Karanovo and Ulucak. Even “Fikirtepe type” cult tables are different
than Karanovo examples, despite possible contemporaneity. In Turkey, triangular
variants are not attested so far (for details see Schwarzberg 2005).
In terms of relative dating, by judging of vessel shapes, Karanovo I is most probably
contemporary with Ulucak IVb. Absence of hole-mouth jars and presence of developed
jar and bowl forms are speaking for parallels with Ulucak IVb and hence a later date
than 6000 cal. BCE. On the other side, absence of carinated forms at Karanovo might
also support the late dating of the earliest layers on the mound. It is known that in
Kovačevo I a-b that there is a tendency towards production of spherical bowls instead of
carinated bowls during the Karanovo I period which are only found in the earliest
deposits (see below for details). The Early Karanovo I phase, as noted by Nikolov
(1997), lacks on Tell Karanovo. In other words, carinated bowl forms may have been an
indication of early Karanovo I sequence in Bulgaria which disappear in the later
developmental stages.
Despite diverging regional-local traits, it is possible to detect common characteristics at
both sites to a certain extent and compare our results with absolute dates. Our
comparisons indicate that the earliest layers at site Karanovo might be contemporary
with Ulucak IV, which is dated to 5900-5700 cal. BCE. The early Karanovo II layers at
Karanovo may overlap with very Late Ulucak (IVa-b), although in general Karanovo II
410
at the site seems to be post-dating Ulucak IVb as indicated by certain morphological
features.
4. Rakitovo
The site Rakitovo owes its name to the modern city which lies 500 m to the northwest of
the mound. It is situated on the southeast portion of Čepino Plain bordering the Rhodope
Mountains on 780 m above sea level. Two freshwater sources are available in the
vicinity of the mound, namely the rivers Stara Reka and Matniza. Rakitovo is a
prehistoric mound which has been discovered during construction activities in the city.
Salvage excavations have been carried out in 1974-1975 by A. Radunčeva and V.
Macanova who published a detailed excavation report in 2002. The mound contained
intact material from Karanovo I to II periods while remains of Karanovo III horizon have
been completely destroyed (Radunčeva et al. 2002: 202; Macanova 2002: 191).
1.5 m thick culture deposits have been excavated which encompassed burnt remains of
two building phases. The upper layer contained rows of post-holes belonging to 12
single-room houses with trapeze shape. The houses have around 40 cm thick mud-walls.
The excavators suggest that Houses 8, 9 and 12 are adjacent to each other and the middle
room was used as a cult space which contained a mud platform which is paved with river
stones. Remains of inner architectural features such as an oven, square storage units and
a so-called “altar” have been found in House 9. The older building phase has 25-30 cm
thickness and is partially destroyed through the younger pits. In this phase, six trapeze-
shaped post-houses with East-West orientation have been excavated (Radunčeva et al.
2002).
It is reported that animal herding was the main subsistence source for the community
who made use of cattle, sheep, goat and pigs not only as meat-source but presumably
also as a source for secondary products. Hunting played a secondary but significant role
for the subsistence, too. Agricultural activities have been proven through the presence of
einkorn wheat, emmer wheat and six-hulled barley at the site (Radunčeva et al. 2002:
203-204).
Typical material cultural elements are polished axes, bone awls and polishers, sling
missiles, bone spatulae, “cult tables”, loom-weights, “spools”, schematic clay figurines,
zoomorphic vessels, flint artifacts, spindle whorls and grinding instruments. The
411
excavators date the material from Rakitovo to the end of 6th- beginning of 5th millennium
cal. BCE (Radunčeva et al. 2002).
Ceramics
Pottery from the site has been analyzed by V. Macanova (2002), whose report this
section will draw on.
The ceramics from the site have been distinguished into two large groups: Coarse and
Fine Wares. The fine ware is further sub-divided into two groups based on the
decoration and these are named “Monochrome” and “Painted Fine” pottery.
Coarse wares comprise the baulk of the assemblage in both phases. The pottery of the
younger phase contain 77% coarse wares, 9% undecorated fine ware and 13% painted
and 1% channeled-decorated sherds. In the earlier phase, coarse pottery comprises 81%
of the pottery assemblage whereas the painted wares comprise 11% of the assemblage.
Unpainted fine wares make up only 8% of the assemblage in the older phase (Macanovo
2002: Tab. 2).
Coarse wares are described as porous, thick-walled (1-3 cm), rough or smoothed
surfaced wares with mineral and organic temper. The cores are in general three-layered
with an inoxidized layer in the center. The surface color ranges from brown, light brown,
gray to black. Coarse wares can be decorated with impressions, incisions, plastic
applications and surface-roughening or with a combination of these techniques. Large
bowls, beakers, pots, miniature vessels and storage jars can be attributed to this group
(Fig. 6.39). Globular large bowls and bowls with straight profiles make up the majority
of the assemblage in both phases. Relief band with finger impressions is one of the
typical decoration technique observed on coarse wares. Spirals with positive and
negative decoration are likewise encountered.
Figure 6.39: A selection of undecorated pottery forms from Rakitovo (after Macanova 2002: Taf. 1)
412
Unpainted wares have smaller wall thicknesses compared to coarse wares. The cores are
dark or with dark colored centers. The surface colors are dominated by dark shades like
black and dark grey while occasionally brown and beige colors appear, too. It is not
indicated in the report what kind of surface treatment display fine wares. Channeled
decoration and white incrustration are techniques used to decorate fine wares. Some of
the vessel shapes observed on fine wares are absent in the coarse ware group. These are
the tulip-shaped vessels, lids and large spherical jars with short necks and pierced knobs.
Otherwise, bowls with straight profiles, deep bowls with convex profiles, squat vessels
and beakers are also encountered. One very schematically manufactured red slipped
anthropomorphic vessel has been found in younger phase. Pedestal, disc, concave, and
flat bases are associated with this ware.
Painted wares comprise around 10% of the pottery in both phases. Painted wares carry
typically red, dark red, dark brown or black slips. The paint is white, cream or light
brown colored. White colored vessels are apparently polished after paint has been
applied. Both positive and negative painting has been applied on the vases. Large bowls,
bowls, tulip-shaped vases, lids and necked jars have been subject to painted decoration.
Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profile, carinated bowls, large bowls with flaring sides and bowls
with convex profiles and high ring bases are associated with painted vessels.
Macanova distinguishes two styles of painting on the vessels which is called “Thracian
Style” and “Rakitovo Style”. The so-called Thracian style has good parallels from
Karanovo I sites whereas Rakitovo style is distinguished from these in terms of the
motifs and application.
Thracian style is characterized by a narrow motif around the mouth and a larger good
organized repeating base-motif on the body. Typical compositions contain spiraloids,
circles or ‘s’-shaped forms. Large open bowls show painted decoration on the inside,
too. Rakitovo style is associated with cream colored paint on brown or dark red surface.
This style is defined with triangles, “Y”, “X”, “T” based motifs. Spiraloid or wavy lines
are also encountered in this style. According to Macanovo, “Thracian style” finds good
parallels at Karanovo I sites from Thrace while Rakitovo style is a local development
and is genetically more related to Macedonian (Anza), Anatolian (Hacılar V-II) and
Thessalian painted wares.
413
5. Ceramic Sequence of the Region and Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
From the above account it becomes clear that it is difficult to write a ceramic sequence
for the whole region because certain sub-regional variations occur in the sequence,
which are not necessarily observed at the each settlement we presented. Nevertheless, a
general sequence can be created given that by and large the pottery from various parts of
Thrace which, nevertheless, resembles each other.
The fresh data from Aşağı Pınar Level 8 may indeed entail the earliest pottery horizon
known in the entire Thrace. Currently, a restricted area belonging to this phase has been
excavated and carbon dates are not available yet. Archaeological data from Aşağı Pınar
8, given that they are in reality corresponding to basal Menteşe and Çatalhöyük VI-IV,
can revolutionize the current models on the neolithization of Thrace. The earliest well-
defined pottery sequence in Thrace, however, begins with the red slipped wares from
Hoca Çeşme IV-III, which represent a phase before the appearance of white-painted red
slipped pottery. At this stage, the pottery is almost completely devoid of painted designs.
Typical forms are bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, carinated bowls and hole-mouth or
short necked jars. Bead-rims, tubular lugs, pierced knobs and crescentic lugs are typical
application to the vessels. It is already indicated above that Hoca Çeşme IV, without the
long necked jars, might correlate better with Early Level IV at Ulucak whereas jars with
funnel necks of Hoca Çeşme III-II may correlate better with Ulucak IVb.
It is only with Hoca Çeşme II, white-on-red painted pottery, typical of Karanovo I
horizon, occurs at the site. This phase is characterized by red slipped pottery, white
painting, tulip-shaped vases, pedestal bases and long necked jars. Besides, coarse pottery
decorated with finger-pressed relief bands, impressed pottery and circular clay
applications can also be considered typical for Karanovo I stage. Hoca Çeşme II, Aşağı
Pınar 7, Karanovo I and Rakitovo (both phases) contained the typical pottery of this
phase. If we exclude the Turkish Thrace for one moment, this is the earliest known
cultural horizon in Thrace. In Thrace, the earliest Neolithic sites already have white-
painted and impressed pottery which poses a stark contrast to Anatolian pottery
Neolithic sequence where painted pottery appears only at the very end of the Neolithic
period.
414
It is indicated that Rakitovo, due to its geographic location on the western border of
Thrace, close to Rhodope Mountains, shows designs and cream colored paint that can be
distinguished from typical Thracian Karanovo motifs. Some of the motifs, especially the
triangles combined with net-motif with fine lines, find good parallels at Can Hasan 2B
and Çatalhöyük West (Mellaart’s ‘Early Chalcolithic II Wares’). Comparisons for these
motifs actually lack at Hacılar and Kuruçay. Appearance of fine lines and net motif
combined with triangles is seemingly post-dating Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 as well as
Ulucak IV. Rakitovo is thus clearly later than Ulucak IV horizon.
Karanovo I in Thrace would be roughly contemporary with Late Ulucak IV. We have
already mentioned that despite contemporaneity there are many features in pottery that
differentiate Thrace from Central-West Anatolia. There is no need to repeat these traits
here. However, one of them needs to be raised here: Coarse Wares.
We have pointed out at Rakitovo, for instance, coarse wares make up 77-81% of the
ceramic assemblage. As it is known, at Ulucak (and West Anatolia in general), coarse
wares barely exist. Besides, only 4% of Ulucak IVb pottery has wall thickness which is
above 9 mm. Ulucak pottery is made out of fine-medium wares with wall thicknesses
around 3-6 mm. Obviously, predominance of coarse wares at Karanovo I sites, in
comparison to their near-absence at Central-West Anatolian sites, has important
implications as to the pottery production practices, function of the pottery and
technological level at both regions. In this respect, there is a big difference between how
and for what purposes pottery is produced in these regions. At Karanovo I sites, the
coarse wares seems to have been used for cooking and storage purposes and they
typically have untreated surfaces whereas at Ulucak real “cooking pots” are rare whereas
most of the pottery production is devoted to the manufacturing of serving and storage
containers. Even the large storage containers are well-burnished at Ulucak IV.
Unburnished wares, usually associated with Gray Wares and impressed sherds, are also
almost absent at Ulucak. For instance, only 3% of the pottery was left unburnished in
Ulucak IVb. Hence, the surface treatment likewise shows contrast in both regions.
Therefore, Karanovo I stage, is increasingly distinctive in character from the pottery
evidence from Central-West Anatolia. Hence, it proves to be difficult to find analogies
between Thrace and Central-West Anatolia.
415
We must, however, underline the fact that basic vessel forms, like necked jars, bowls
with convex profiles, bowls with flaring sides, are matched at both regions. Moreover,
impressed wares are common to both regions and they are almost identical to each other.
Application of red slip on fine wares is likewise common to both regions.
To conclude, despite common elements in the ceramic assemblages, two regions remain
essentially diverse due to local traits and developments. The analogous features between
Thrace and Central-West Anatolia are largely restricted to the initial stages of Neolithic
settlements (pre-6000 BCE) such as dark burnished wares at Aşağı Pınar 8 and Ulucak
Vb-f and fine red slipped wares at Hoca Çeşme IV and Ulucak IV. Through time the
ceramics traditions in both regions diverge from each other and develop locally preferred
traits such as tulip-shaped vases in Thrace and flattened rims in Central-West Anatolia.
K. Northeast Bulgaria
Northeast Bulgaria is one of two regions in Bulgaria where “monochrome stage” was
detected. Contrary to Struma River Basin, where Krainitsi stands as the only site with
monochrome deposits, in Northeast Bulgaria, several sites have been excavated which
contained deposits with unpainted pottery. First of the monochrome sites, Polyanitsa-
Platoto near Turgovishte, was investigated already in 1974 by Todorova. In the coming
decades, small-scale excavations have been carried out in the region by V. Popov, who
found exclusively unpainted pottery in the basal layers of Koprivets, Orlovets and
Cherven in the Rusenski Lom river valley (Todorova 1995: 83-84; Elenski 2004: 71).
Recently, the earliest phase at Dzhulyunitsa-Smardesh in Veliko Tarnovo region also has
been attributed to the monochrome horizon (Elenski 2006: 117).
Three early carbon dates from Polyanitsa-Platoto as well as the undoubtful presence of
monochrome sites in Southeast Europe such as Donja Branjevina, Divostin I, Circea or
Gura Baciului, are implemented to demonstrate the early age of this stratum. Todorova
(1995: 83-84) basically envisage an initial process of demic diffusion to the region by
early agro-pastoralists who followed the major river valleys and which preceded the
second massive wave which resulted in archaeologically more visible Karanovo Culture.
Another interesting remark concerning the presence of an early ceramic stage in Bulgaria
is made by Bailey (2000: 90) who emphasizes the different types of temper used for
producing early monochrome pottery and the following painted pottery. Monochrome
pottery is mostly organic tempered and Bailey interprets this as a sign of frequent
416
mobility of the initial Neolithic communities as pottery with organic temper is lighter
and easier to manufacture. Painted pottery and other associated wares which appear later
are predominantly mineral tempered and indicate increased sedentism in the region.
A number of archaeologists (Stefanova 1996; Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002; Thissen 2000;
Krauß in press) seriously doubt the existence of a “monochrome phase” in Bulgaria.
They argue that the excavations carried out at these supposedly monochrome sites are
very small-scale to reveal any painted pottery which is always found in small quantities.
Doubts concerning the accuracy of Polyanitsa-Platoto carbon dates also exist. Moreover,
they argue that the morphology of the pottery from monochrome and painted pottery
horizons are so similar they cannot origin from separate time zones and that they should
be contemporary with the Karanovo I horizon.
1. Polyanitsa-Platoto
As mentioned above, already in 1974, Todorova identified and excavated the site which
is located to the south of Balkan Mountains in Northeast Bulgaria near Turgovishte. This
site produced four carbon dates (sampled on chaff preserved in pottery) which fall
between 6400-6000 cal. BCE, thereby preceding all the known EN sites in the entire
Bulgaria. The dates, provided by Görsdorf and Bojadžiev (1996: 122), are as follows:
Bln-1571 (7535±80 BP), Bln-1613 (7380±60 BP), Bln-1613A (7275±60 BP) and Bln-
1512 (7140±80 BP).
The site also produced much sought evidence of architectural remains which are
composed of rectilinear wattle-and-daub structures which are 3.5 x 3.5 or 4 x 4 m in size
(although not illustrated in the reports). The lithic industry shows microlithic elements
such as trapezes and perforators (Todorova 1990: 72).
The pottery is red slipped, organic and quartz tempered dark fractured and matt
burnished. The surface is porous due to the organic material in the paste. The typical
vessel forms are bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, jars with short necks and globular
bodies, large bowls with convex profiles and hole-mouth jars. High pedestal bases,
tubular lugs and, though rare, impressed decorations are among the other features of
Polyanitsa-Platoto ceramics (Todorova 1990: 72; Abb. 1).
Todorova compares the Polyanitsa-Platoto finds to Donja Branjevina, Achilleion and
Krainitsi I which according to her confirm the existence of pre-Karanovo I sites in
417
Northeast Bulgaria (Todorova 1990: 72). Unfortunately, detailed assessment of the
ceramic material from Polyanitsa-Platoto remains unpublished.
2. Koprivets
The material from Koprivets has been extensively published in 1996 separately by
Popov and Stefanova. We will provide a glimpse at this ceramic material as we consider
the ceramics from this site to be important for understanding the initial stages of the
Bulgarian EN. Another reason why we include the ceramic data from the site is their
unmistakable similarity to Ulucak Va-b ceramics. The fact that no carbon dates are
available from the basal layers of Koprivets is unfortunate as it prevents us from
correlating Ulucak and Koprivets chronologically on a firm basis. Nevertheless, it has to
be noted that Ulucak IV-V ceramics are technologically and morphologically closer to
Koprivets ceramics than any of the Karanovo I assemblages from Thrace.72
Koprivets is located on a valley created by a tributary of Lower Danube, called Rusenski
Lom, close to the modern settlement Ruse. The site is a flat settlement, submerged by the
alluvial silt. Excavations on the site were comprised to three grids which are located in
various locations of the site. Grid B, which is located on the eastern slope, covers
approximately an area of 10 x 5 m. Among the four occupation levels identified at the
site (I-IV), which did not produce positive remains of architecture, two layers situated on
the virgin soil from Grid B, associated with fire installations, were attributed to the
“monochrome stage” (Popov 1996: Figs. 5-6). According to Stefanova, few white-
painted sherds have been found in the upper layers (Stefanova 1996: 17). The lithic
industry is characterized by large flakes, notched tools and tools made on flakes and
blades produced on multi-directional cores prepared from local raw material, which
according to Gatsov show clear similarities to Hoca Çeşme IV-III lithic industry (Gatsov
2009: 33; 121).
Pottery from these levels is divided into two basic categories: fine/semi-coarse and
coarse wares. Fine wares are thin-walled, densely organic tempered with inoxidized
cores. The surfaces are burnished and bright with colors that range around beige, grey-
beige, brown and red. Medium and coarse wares, likewise organic tempered with dark
fractures, have smoothed or unsmoothed surfaces with red, reddish brown and brown
shades. Decoration from ceramics from Levels I-III at the site is confined to
72 Thanks to my colleagues Nedko Elenski and Raiko Krauß, I was able to inspect the ceramic material from Koprivets in Veliko Tărnovo Archaeological Museum.
418
punctuations (2%), impressions (1%) and plastic decoration (11%). White-on-red
painted sherds were also found at the site (Stefanova 1996: 17).
The vessel shapes include both restricted and unrestricted forms. Medium to large sized
bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with convex profiles, hole-mouth bowls and jars
with carinated bellies are frequently found in the assemblage. Jars appear with or without
necks. Large sized jars with long funnel necks are not known in the assemblage. Jars
typically have globular bodies and disc bases. Single circular knobs, vertical tubular
lugs, horizontally pierced knobs are observed in the assemblage (Popov 1996: Figs. 18-
29; Stefanova 1996: Tables 2-6).
3. Comparisons with Ulucak and Anatolian sites
As already stated above, Koprivets I-II ceramics display multiple features that are
perfectly matched at Ulucak. Especially Ulucak Va-b ceramics are very well-comparable
with Koprivets “monochrome stage”. The similarities are encountered in two ways:
Fabrics and morphology.
First of all, the fine burnished pottery with beige, grey-beige, grey-brown and red colors
correspond well to our Cream Slipped Burnished Ware and Red Slipped Burnished Ware
from Ulucak IV-V. It is known that Hacılar IX-VIII pottery show the same
characteristics in terms of surface treatment and surface colors. In other words, fine
cream-grey colored burnished wares are typically associated with pre-red slipped ware
horizon in Western Turkey in which red slipped wares are not yet dominating the
assemblages.
The medium and coarse wares without careful burnishing and rough surfaces, however,
are foreign to West Anatolia, where fine-medium burnished pottery comprises almost the
entire assemblage. It is not clear whether the unburnished medium-coarse wares are
quantitatively low at Koprivets.
Organic temper and inoxidized cores are characteristics of Ulucak IV-V pottery.
Although in Level V at Ulucak mineral temper dominates, chaff as temper is also
occasionally used. In Northwest Anatolia, organic temper is known only from Ilıpınar X
and Uğurlu on Gökçeada (Thissen 2001; Erdoğu 2003). In Anatolia, pores on red slipped
wares, left as a result of burning of chaff temper in the paste, are primarily observed at
two more or less contemporary sites: Musular and Ulucak IV.
419
One interesting feature is the presence of impressed jars from the region. Although rare,
impressed sherds were recovered both at Koprivets and Polyanitsa-Platoto. The globular
jar with impressions and disc base from Polyanitsa-Platoto (Todorova 1990: Fig. 2) is
almost identical to the impressed jar from Ulucak IVh. Impressions from Polyanitsa
match with the ‘Impresso A’ horizon, the earliest impressed pottery style, identified by
Müller (1988: 106). The identical vessel form is found at Ulucak IVb, too.
Unfortunately, it is not clear from the reports whether impressions were applied on a red
slip or on an unburnished surface. Both varieties are attested at Central-West Anatolian
sites.
All the vessel shapes from Koprivets, except the carinated bowl, find good parallels in
Ulucak IV-V (Fig. 6.40). In West Anatolia, presence of hole-mouth forms and absence
of large jars with funnel necks are clear indications of pre-6000 cal. BCE dating for any
given site. Necks on jars develop very gradually without any breaks from LN to EC at
Anatolian sites. It is not yet clear whether same correlation can be made for Northeast
Bulgaria, however when one compares the Karanovo I assemblages with Koprivets I, it
seems likely that it may be applied to Bulgaria, too. As already discussed, Karanovo I
ceramics do contain jars with developed necks along with hole-mouth jars. Moreover,
Figure 6.40: Major vessel shapes from Northeast Bulgaria in comparison to typical Ulucak IV-V vessels.
420
the absence of pedestal bases, a typical feature of Karanovo I horizon in Thrace and
Struma Valley, is another indication of pre-Karanovo I dating of these ceramics. Yet
another clue as to the pre-Karanovo I dating of Koprivets material is confirmed by the
absence of “offering tables” which hardly appears in the 7th millennium BCE in West
Anatolia (Schwarzberg 2005: Fig. 5). Although they have been found at basal Menteşe
(6440-6220 cal. BCE), we can remind that even the earliest deposits at basal Menteşe did
not contain “Fikirtepe-type” boxes (Roodenberg et al. 2003: 34).
Among the most strikingly similar forms from Koprivets-Polyanitsa-Platoto Group and
Ulucak is large bowls with pronounced ‘s’-shaped profiles. Hole-mouth bowls, which
are especially typical for Ulucak Vb and earlier, are also commonly found at Koprivets.
Pots and jars with narrowing mouths and globular bodies are one of the definitive forms
of the LN in Central Anatolia (Çatal East), West Anatolia (Hacılar, Ulucak) and
Northwestern Anatolia (Menteşe). Although hole-mouth forms continue into the early
stages of EC they are increasingly accompanied with necked jars. Therefore, hole-mouth
jars without necked jars may well point to the early dating of basal Koprivets.
Another development which is observed during the EC at Anatolian sites is the increase
in the volumes of restricted vessels. For instance, large sized jars, suitable for storage
purposes, are completely absent prior to Level IV at Ulucak. The sizes of the jars from
Koprivets can be described as small to medium while at Tell Karanovo, basal levels
already yield large jars, reaching up to 1 m. (see Hiller and Nikolov 1997: Taf. 67.7). It
is clear that implementing jar sizes as a dating criterion is problematic; however, when
considered with the other “early-looking” features it acquires a meaning.
Another similarity between Ulucak and Koprivets can be found in the lug types. Absence
of handles is typical for Anatolian LN which seems to be echoed at Koprivets.
Functional applications are restricted to pierced knobs and tubular lugs. Vertical tubular
lugs are frequently applied on jars at Ulucak V but their average length is higher than the
Koprivets tubular lugs. Horizontally pierced lugs are known from Ulucak and basal
Menteşe (compare Roodenberg et al. 2003: Fig. 14.2).
Yet another similarity can be detected in the typological variation of the bases. Disc, ring
and raised bases are the most frequent base shapes at Koprivets. Contrary to basal
Menteşe, where flat bases are dominating, Ulucak V pottery is predominated by disc
bases while ringed and flat bases are also evident. Raised bases which pre-echoes the
421
development of high pedestal bases of Karanovo I, are found at basal Menteşe but
interestingly absent at Ilıpınar. In Lake District, pedestal bases are observed at least with
Hacılar IV onwards whereas short pedestal bases of Koprivets type are found at Kuruçay
11 (Duru 1994: Lev. 59; 76). Obviously, the raised bases are not produced in West
Anatolia prior to 6000 cal. BCE while in Northwestern Anatolia they occur before 6000
cal. BCE as evidenced at Menteşe. At Polyanitsa-Platoto high pedestal bases are already
present, and this situation is contrasted at Koprivets material. It seems likely that
Koprivets I is slightly earlier than Polyanitsa-Platoto.
The overlapping characteristics of Koprivets ceramics with Ulucak V and basal Menteşe
assemblages seem to be far from being coincidental. In my opinion, early deposits at
Koprivets are earlier than all the known Karanovo I sites in Thrace and might well date
to the last centuries of 7th millennium cal. BCE (presumably 6200-6000 cal. BCE).
Absence of systematic excavation and absolute dates prevent any testing of our
suggestion.
An alternative (later) dating of Koprivets material has been suggested by Thissen who
finds parallels at various Romanian sites such as Glavaneştii (Thissen 2000: 196).
Although there are obvious similarities in terms of the vessel shape between Koprivets
and Tell Karanovo I-II assemblages, it is hard to argue that these may be contemporary.
It is more plausible that Karanovo I inhabitants adapted (or were already familiar with)
long-lasting elements of the ceramic production which were previously developed in
certain localities in West Anatolia, Aegean and Southeastern Europe. Hence, “Karanovo
Culture” remains as a local Thracian development influenced from and simultaneously
influenced neighboring regions.
The key issue may be here is to identify if Thrace really remains unsettled prior to 6000
cal. BCE and if yes, why? Did the people who inhabited foothills and valleys of
Northeast Bulgaria suddenly decided to settle the low alluvial plains? Or is there another
wave of movement into the area by communities who searched for vast low-lying
alluvial plains suitable for sustaining large populations who are dependent on farming?
According to Todorova, climatic fluctuation which abruptly caused colder temperatures
forced communities in Northeast Bulgaria to settle down in Thrace (Todorova 1995: 84).
Moreover, she asserts that Tell-oriented research in the region may have also contributed
to this situation. Pavúk (1997: 249) and Krauß (in press) consider Todorova’s model of
late-inhabitation of Thrace unlikely, expecting pre-Karanovo I sites to be discovered
422
soon below the thick alluvial silting. Thissen, on the other hand, envisages the initial
neolithization of Southeast Europe, including Bulgaria, as a process of conscious settling
of alluvial plains by Anatolian communities who intent to “maintain and continue the
patterns of life established by tradition” (Thissen 2000: 193). He does not however
attempt to explain why Thrace was settled later than the most major alluvial plains of
Southeast Europe, including the Struma Valley.
The precise dating of Koprivets material has to wait reliable carbon dates and large-scale
excavations in the region. Hence, our suggestions concerning the dating of the material
has to be treated as tentative.
L. Struma River Valley and Sofia Basin
Struma (Strymon) Basin is considered as one of the major dispersal routes of Neolithic
way of life from the Aegean into the Southeast Europe (Nikolov 1989; Lichardus-Itten
1993; Todorova 1995). It certainly provided variety of natural resources, micro
ecological zones, communication networks and suitable soil and climatic conditions for
cereal cultivation and animal herding. The importance of the region is also provided by
its regional cultural character which differed to some extent from Karanovo sites of
Thrace. Recent research clearly indicates that, on the contrary to what has been assumed
before, neolithization of Struma Valley may have occurred earlier than Thrace (Thissen
2000: 197).
The Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Struma River Basin are better researched
compared to many regions in Bulgaria, providing us with a reliable picture of the
cultural development.73 Of 113 Neolithic sites identified in the valley, 28 belong to EN
horizon and 11 of them have been investigated through excavations (Chohadzhiev 2007:
53).
The discussions concerning the presence of monochrome vs. painted pottery horizons
exist in this region, too. Above, we have already pointed out that, in our opinion, there is
a bias in Bulgarian archaeology towards publishing painted pottery while leaving
undecorated pottery unpublished. In Struma Valley, presence of a monochrome horizon
is archaeologically demonstrated by deposits from Krainitsi I which will be evaluated
below. The horizon with the white painted pottery from the region has been coined as
“West Bulgarian Painted Cultures” (Kremikovči Culture) by J.H. Gaul (1948) and was
73 see Chohadzhiev 2007: 9-13 for a detailed account of the prehistoric research status in the Struma Valley.
423
excavated at a number of EN sites; Kovačevo and Gălăbnik comprising the earliest of
these in date.
Despite many similarities to Karanovo Culture identified in Thrace, such as white-on-red
paint, Struma Valley is indeed outside the primary distribution zone of Karanovo
Culture. For instance, the typical tulip-shaped vessels of Thrace are not known in this
region whereas some Aegean influences (like impressed wares) are encountered in the
assemblages. According to Krauß (in press), the best parallels in the ceramic
assemblages for the region can be found in the northern sections of Southeast Europe,
namely in Serbia and Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) where
Starčevo Culture has been defined.
We will concentrate on three sites in this section, Kovačevo, Krainitsi and Sofia-Slatina,
as they provide contemporary material for Ulucak IV. Sites which might be
contemporary with Ulucak V are missing in the region.
1. Kovačevo
Kovačevo is located on of the tributaries of Struma, namely Katunska Bistrica, in the
middle Struma Valley on the western alluvial terraces of Pirin Mountains in Southwest
Bulgaria on 450 m above sea level. Kovačevo is a flat settlement which covers
approximately six hectares and contains two m of cultural deposits (Lichardus-Itten et al.
2000: 27).
The site, which has been damaged by a road construction as well as by agricultural and
erosional constraints, has been discovered in the early 1980’s by M. Domaradzki and
extensively excavated by a joint French-Bulgarian expedition between 1986-2000 under
the auspices of CNRS, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Blagoevgrad
Historical Museum.
Several periods are represented by the cultural layers which are labeled as Kovačevo I-
III. EN habitation is founded on a thick pebble layer and yellowish clay deposits and
encompasses four sub-phases which are called “Kovačevo Ia-Id”. The EN occupational
layers Ia-c correspond to Karanovo I while Id corresponds to Karanovo II. The
excavators claim that Kovačevo Ia is the oldest Neolithic settlement in Bulgaria due to
the presence of a style of painting on vessels that has not been attested elsewhere
(Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 122).
424
Middle Neolithic deposits which immediately follow the preceding occupation partly
destroyed the earliest occupation layers. The site was re-inhabited after 1500 years of
hiatus in the Early Bronze Age whose deposits also caused damage to the EN remains.
Excavators noticed an Early Iron Age occupation and perhaps of later periods which are
completely eroded (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 104-106).
Architectural remains from Layer Ib-d are scarce. In some instances, post-holes, hearths
and ovens as well as superimposed layers of floor constructions with pottery could have
been identified. Absence of lines of postholes associated with floors is construed as
exclusive use of mud as building material by the community using mud-slab technique.
Architectural technique used in the lower most Layer, Ia, differs from the upper layers as
it contained quasi-square planned wattle-and-daub constructions. One ditch with clay
plaster and at least 20 meter length has probably functioned as a water management
system and date to Kovačevo I. Another construction of the same sort was also found to
the north of the first one (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002).
Apart from the pottery which we will present below, various typical Neolithic find
groups are recovered at the site. These include bone spatula, polished axes, “offering
tables”, grinding instruments, bone awls and polishers, biconical sling missiles, clay
stamps, “M” shaped amulettes and bracelets. Steatopygous and cylindrical
anthropomorphic figurines as well as zoomorphic figurines are also found in the
assemblage made variously from clay and marble. Chipped stone industry, on quartz and
flint, is predominated by retouched blade production and sickle elements (Lichardus-
Itten et al. 2002: 123-125; Figs. 20-22).
Kovačevo was inhabited by an agro-pastoral group who cultivated emmer wheat
(Triticum dicoccum), einkorn wheat (Triticum monoccocum), durum wheat (Triticum
durum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) as well as pulses like lentil, chick-pea, bitter
vetch and pea (Marinova 2006: Tab. 6.1.1). Wild plants and marine resources were also
exploited (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 127). Osteological analysis of animal remains
indicate the predominant presence of domesticated species such as sheep-goat, cattle and
pig whereas the amount of non-domesticates comprise around 2.8% of the analyzed
specimens (Benecke and Ninov 2002: 558).
Seven carbon dates are measured on samples from Kovačevo Ia-d which range from
6160 to 5510 cal. BCE. The earliest occupation provided one carbon determination (Ly-
425
1437) 7180±45 which is calibrated as 6160-5990 cal. BCE (at 1 σ). Phase Ib is roughly
dated to 5980-5770 cal. BCE and Phase Id from 5800-5510 cal. BCE (at 1 σ) (Thissen
and Reingruber 2005: 315). In rough terms, Kovačevo I covers 400-500 years of
continuous occupation.
1.1. Ceramics
The detailed analysis of the pottery
from the EN layers is currently in
progress. We will have to restrict
ourselves to the preliminary reports
provided by Lichardus-Itten et al.
(2002: 118-122) and Pernitcheva
(1990). The assemblage is composed
of four different wares: Coarse Wares,
Standard Wares, Fine Gray-Brown
Wares and Red Monochrome or Red
Painted Wares. Coarse wares,
associated with pithos-like large
containers, are distinguished from the
fine-medium wares with their thick
walls which exceed 1 cm. Standard
Wares are mineral tempered and have walls that are 0.5-1 cm thick while fine wares are
3-4 mm thick and have nicely treated surfaces with slip and burnishing. Several types of
decoration have been attested at Kovačevo I. These include barbotine, incisions, plastic
applications, impressions, fluting and paint (Pernitcheva 1990: 150-156).
It is indicated that the painted pottery, which is mostly of white-on-red type, comprises
only 3% of the pottery assemblage. The painted pottery from the site is evidently coil-
built, sand-tempered, red slipped and well-burnished with wall thicknesses commonly
around 2-3 mm. The surface colors range from pale orange, brown, reddish brown to red
and dark red whereas the white paint may have various tones of white, yellow and
cream. Paint is applied before firing. The painted pottery from the site has been sub-
divided into nine categories depending on the style and arrangement of the painting as
well as the stratigraphical context (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 118-119).
Figure 6.41: The earliest decoration types (Groups I and H) at Kovačevo I (modified after Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: Pl. 17-18)
426
According to this classification, the earliest deposits (Ia) contain mainly pottery with
dark backgrounds, brown, reddish brown or dark red (Groups I and H; Fig. 6.41). The
paint is observed only on the exterior of the vessels and has linear shapes, horizontal and
vertical zig-zags, dots and “ladders”. The forms are mainly simple. Hole-mouth jars, jars
with short vertical necks, bowls and large bowls with slight ‘s’-shaped profiles and
bowls with convex profiles are very common. Carinated bowls are also present in this
early layer. Bases are flat and lugs are restricted to pierced vertical knobs (Lichardus-
Itten et al. 2002: 121-123).
Layers Ib-d contain white-on-red painted pottery which has linear, rectilinear, curvilinear
and geometric patterns including spirals, wavy lines, checker boards and hatched
triangles. The surface colors are remarkably lighter, having orange-red colors. With
Kovačevo Ib, decoration on the vessel interiors is encountered. The upper most layer Id
vessels include vessels painted from the rim to the base on the exterior. Although the
major vessel forms remain similar to the previous layer, certain changes in the vessel
morphology are observed. For instance, carinated bowls disappear with Kovačevo Ib;
pedestal bases and jars with long necks appear. It is noted that the pedestal bases become
taller at the end of the Kovačevo I sequence (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002: 121-122).
Despite changes there seems to be a gradual development in the pottery shapes and
decoration at the site. Certain jar and bowl forms continue to be produced until the end
of the EN sequence. Carbon determinations indicate possible contemporaneity of
Kovačevo Ia-b with Ulucak IV. There is good possibility that Kovačevo Id is slightly
later than terminal Ulucak IV.
1.2. Comparisons with Ulucak
When compared to Ulucak IV and other Central-West Anatolian sites clear similarities
are observed with regards to the fabric and vessel morphology. Although the painting
lacks at Ulucak IV, the basic properties of the wares are extremely similar. These are
emphasized by thin walls, application of red slip and burnishing. Red slipped burnished
wares constitute one of the major fabrics at Kovačevo (Pernitcheva 1990). Different is
the tempering material: mineral at Kovačevo and mostly organic-mineral at Ulucak IV.
At Ulucak IV, fine wares, virtually vessels with thin walls and careful surface finishing,
comprise around 90% of the assemblage. Similar values may be found at Kovačevo too.
The earliest painted pottery from Kovačevo (Groups H and I) shows similarities to the
427
motifs on Ilıpınar VIII incised pottery (see Thissen 2001: Figs. 63-64), however, direct
analogies are lacking.
Coarse Wares and Standard Wares as well as Fine Gray-Brown Wares do not appear
Ulucak IV in meaningful amounts.
As mentioned above, vessel morphology is highly reminiscent at both sites. Bowls with
convex and slight ‘s’-shaped profiles, jars without necks or short necks are very
commonly found at Ulucak IV and other Central-West Anatolian sites. Simple or everted
rims as well as flat bases are also commonly attested at both sites. Genuine carination is
not known at Ulucak IV, although there is clearly a tendency towards production of
vessels with sharp angles. Vertically placed tubular lugs, flattened rims, disc bases,
plastic decoration, impressions or small vertical handles typical elements of Central-
West Anatolian assemblages are not found at Kovačevo I. Interestingly, vessel shapes at
Kovačevo become simpler as the time goes by — a contrasting trend to Ulucak. On the
other hand, pedestal bases, a very typical feature of Southeast European EN
assemblages, are never encountered at Central-West Anatolian sites, although pedestal
bases become increasingly popular at Hacılar I and Kuruçay 7 around 5700-5600 cal.
BCE. Therefore, we may not conclude that pedestal bases were peculiar to Southeast
Europe but indicate that their development is not represented at Central-West Anatolian
sites which are all abandoned prior to the middle of the 6th millennium cal. BCE.
As a result, despite similarities in general terms and overlapping carbon dates, presence
of pedestal bases and carinated forms at Kovačevo I may point out that Ulucak IV is
preceding Kovačevo I slightly. It should be mentioned that the carbon dates indicate
otherwise. The question therefore is whether pedestal bases and carinated forms are
never produced at Late Ulucak IV, although they are manufactured in the neighboring
regions such as at Lake District. For the moment, it is hard to solve the problem as in
Central-West Anatolia sites which are dated to ca. 5500 cal. BCE which would have
showed the development in the pottery production, are not known.
In addition to the apparent similarities in the ceramic assemblages from the both sites,
one can also note identical features in the other material cultural elements. Bone spatula,
biconical sling missiles, figurines and clay stamps are almost identical at Ulucak IV and
Kovačevo I. Especially the conical clay stamps with concentric circles and spirals are
very well-known from Ulucak IV and Bademağacı ENII-3 (Lichter 2005: Figs. 3-4).
428
What is strikingly different is the presence of cylindrical female figurines at Kovačevo I
which is not matched at Ulucak IV at all. Kovačevo I figurines are obviously
corresponding to a later developmental stage in figurine production in which natural-
looking figures are replaced by ever more schematic and abstract ones (Lichardus-Itten
et al. 2002: 125; Pl. 22). According to Hansen, this tendency occurs around the middle
of the 6th millennium cal. BCE in Anatolia and Southeastern Europe (Hansen 2005: 205).
Indeed, schematized figurines with cylindrical and peg heads are typical for the EC
settlements in Lake District such as Höyücek Sanctuaries Phase (Duru and Umurtak
2005: Pl. 129), Kuruçay EC (Duru 1994: Lev. 190) and Hacılar II (Mellaart 1970: Pl.
237) as well as at Achilleion III-IVa (Gimbutas et al. 1989: Pl. 7.1). The cylindrical
nature of Kovačevo I figurines may be used as a reliable criterion for relative dating,
although their origin is not known. As such figurines are totally absent at Ulucak IV,
where natural style steatopygous figurines are prevailing, one can tentatively suggest that
Kovačevo I, along with the Lake District sites mentioned above, is later than Ulucak
IVb. It is also possible that the technique of producing cylindrical figurines arrive to
Anatolia from the Aegean region. Our current impression is that Ulucak was already
abandoned prior to the appearance of cylindrical schematic figurines in Anatolia and in
the Aegean.
The common find categories we mentioned above are found in such a widespread area
from North Syria-Levant to mainland Greece during the EN period, hence, their
existence at Ulucak IV and Kovačevo I is far from implying direct contact between two
regions, although the possibility cannot be ruled out. The matching material cultural
elements imply existence of long-term social-cultural contacts due to interregional
exchange networks and navigation of the Aegean Sea by multiple groups.
2. Krainitsi I
Krainitsi is a flat-settlement site located on the right bank of the Dzhubrena, one of the
tributaries of Struma, in the Middle Struma Basin in Kjustendil district between Verila
and Rila Mountains on 608 m above sea level. It has been excavated in two seasons
(1986 and 1990) by S. Chohadzhiev and A. Bakamska which covered an area of only
48m2. The EN deposits at the site have been covered with flood material of River
Dzhubrena (Chohadzhiev 2007: 36). The deposits reach 1.5-2.4 m thick and contain
three occupational layers from EN period. Layer I is characterized by monochrome
pottery while Layers II-III contained painted pottery, thus clearly demonstrating the
429
earlier status of occupations with monochrome pottery prior to the development of
white-painted pottery (Chohadzhiev and Bakamska 1990).
The very limited area of excavation inhibited understanding of the settlement plan,
architecture and material culture at the site. Two sitting female figurines have been
found in Layer I (Chohadzhiev 2007: 104).
Unfortunately there is only one carbon date available from Layer I which has a huge
standard deviation (9000±300 BP). Calibration (at 1 σ) provides a range from 8550-7700
cal. BCE which is beyond the limits of credibility (Chohadzhiev 2007: 133).
2.1. Ceramics
Chohadzhiev (2007: 83) and Chohadzhiev and Bakamska (1990: 57-69) provide a
description of the material from the site. The pottery from the Layer I is assigned as the
oldest pottery of the region. The pottery is described as mineral and organic (excrement)
tempered, coil-built and incompletely oxidized with dark colored fracture centers.
Breaks at the coil junctures are very common. The surface is smoothed, occasionally
burnished but not smooth and glossy. Thin wash-like reddish slip is observed on many
pieces.74 Coarse and medium (“ordinary ware”) wares (together 82%) dominate the
assemblage while fine wares (12%) are also present. The wall thickness normally ranges
between 0.8-1.2 cm whereas walls up to 2.7 cm are also encountered in the assemblage
(Chohadzhiev 2007: 83). The vessel forms are very restricted and show simple forms
comprising of hemi-spherical and ‘s’-shaped profiled bowls. Shallow flaring bowls, pots
with hole-mouths, jars with short necks are commonly found (Fig. 6.42). Pierced lugs
and vertical tubular lugs are common. Plastic decoration is observed on coarse wares.
Other decoration types involve incisions, pinching, impressions and barbotine which all
together compose 18% of the assemblage. Impressions are either made with nails or with
a triangular edged instrument which are subsequently slipped. Rims are crooked, simple
or slightly everted. Bases are flat, disc, ringed or raised. Oval bases are also encountered
(Chohadzhiev and Bakamska 1990: 58-59; Tables 10-11).
74 I am grateful to my colleague Petar Zidarov and the staff at the Archaeological Museum in Kjustendil for allowing me to inspect the ceramic material from Krainitsi.
430
Krainitsi II-III is characterized by the
introduction of white-on-red painted
pottery which shows remarkable contrast
to the preceding stage in terms of
technology, fabrics and morphology. The
distinction between coarse and fine wares
(red slipped pottery and painted wares)
can still be made. Krainitsi II-III painted
pottery show netlike patterns, curvilinear
compositions and spiraloids. In terms of
vessel shapes, pedestal bases, footed jars,
large jars with long necks and carinated
forms appear first in this phase. The bowl
forms are mainly hemi-spherical and
convex profiled. Sharp carinations on rim
and belly are important innovations of this
phase (Chohadzhiev 2007: Figs. 7-10).
Apart from painted decoration, surface-roughened wares also appear (Chohadzhiev and
Bakamska 1990: Tables 14-15). The pottery from Horizons II and III are compared to
the assemblages from Gălăbnik and Priboi in terms of their painted patterns and vessel
forms (Chohadzhiev and Bakamska 1990: 70).
2.2. Comparisons with Ulucak and Other Anatolian Sites
Absence of reliable absolute dates from Krainitsi I inhibits general correlations of its
pottery with Central-West Anatolia. Chohadzhiev and Bakamska (1990: 76) and
Chohadzhiev (2007: 83) compare this assemblage to Otzaki I, Sesklo and Achilleion Ia
and suggest that Struma Valley experienced a similar development to Thessaly in the
beginning of the Neolithic period. Indeed, certain technological and morphological traits
of this pottery can be matched at these sites. Wijnen (1982: 25) indicates that ENI
pottery from Thessalian sites do not contain collared jars or carinated forms. The
restricted range and simple form of vessel shapes is, therefore, meaningful as to the early
date of Layer I at Krainitsi, although ENI forms from Thessalian Plain look more
primitive than Krainitsi Layer I where ‘s’-shaped profiles are already in their developed
form (Fig. 6.42). There are other reasons for a denial of contemporaneity of Krainitsi I
with ENI horizon on mainland Greece: presence of red slip and impressed wares at
Figure 6.42: Pottery from Krainitsi I “monochrome stage” (after Chohadzhiev 2005: Fig. 5)
431
Krainitsi. These features appear only in the later stages of Greek EN, i.e. during the Pre-
Sesklo stage which follows “Early Pottery” and “Proto-Sesklo” together with painted
decoration. Pre-Sesklo stage is dated to around 6000-5800 cal. BCE and is the
immediate predecessor of Sesklo phase which is characterized by dark red paint on
whitish background (Gallis 1996a: 120).
Absence of pedestal bases, large jars with funnel necks and carinated forms is likewise
typical for the LN pottery from Western Turkey. For instance, at Ulucak V, large jars,
long necks and carinated forms are absent. Presence of vertical tubular lugs and pierced
knobs are also matched at Ulucak V, although such lugs continue to be produced during
Level IV at Ulucak.
Highly interesting is the presence of impressed sherds at Krainitsi Layer I which do look
similar to Ulucak IV impressed wares which are medium wares with chaff-mineral
tempers and smoothed but mat surfaces. There is considerable similarity as to the
execution of impressions, which may be beyond any coincidences. In my opinion,
impressed wares at Krainitsi I should be evaluated in the bigger culture-historical context
of the Aegean catchment as these wares are encountered in a vast region from Central-
West Anatolia to the Macedonian and Thessalian Plains. The relation of Aegean
impressed wares to Southwest Asian (North Syrian, Cilician and Levantine) impressed
wares remain for the moment largely unexplored but the possibility of organic ties
cannot be excluded from the discussion as these appear almost simultaneously at the end
of the 7th millennium cal. BCE. Direct contact with Dalmatian and Albanian
communities who produced large amounts of impressed pottery is almost certain. What
however misses in the region is the impressed ware which appears after the first style,
Impresso A, with unconnected impressions.
It is known that in Central-West Anatolia, impressed wares do not appear before 6100
cal. BCE. Prior to this date, any kind of decoration on pottery is very rare. Especially
with deposits earlier than Ulucak Vb, impressed decoration disappears completely and
red slipped burnished wares decrease in number sharply. At Ulucak IV, impressed wares,
whether made on Red Slipped Wares or Gray Wares comprise only 4% of the
assemblage but are important chronological signs for the region. Presence of impressed
wares at Krainitsi I might be a chronological indicator too. In other words, presence of
impressed wares may indeed be an indication of post-6100/6000 cal. BCE date for
Krainitsi I.
432
Absence of paint but presence of wash-like red slip and impressed decoration as well as
the predominance of simple bowl and jar forms from Krainitsi Layer I may be indicating
a date somewhere in the transition from monochrome to painted pottery in the Aegean,
as can be followed in Macedonia and Thessaly. Despite similarities in basic forms (‘s’-
shaped profiles, hole-mouth jars, oval bases, disc bases, tubular lugs) and impressed
wares, Krajnitsi I pottery does not find matching comparisons in Central-West Anatolia,
where fine wares with thin walls and careful surface finishing prevail. Coarse and
ordinary wares found in large amounts at Krainitsi are not found in Central-West
Anatolia or in the Lake District. If Krainitsi I indeed fall into the timeline immediately
preceding the appearance of “West Bulgarian Painted Cultures” around 6000-5900 cal.
BCE, there seems to be little common traits as to the ceramic technology and production
in Central-West Anatolia and Struma Valley. Moreover, the forms illustrated by
Chohadzhiev (2007) are matching rather well with Slatina pottery with the simple hemi-
spherical forms and jars with short necks.
The only reliable feature which shows a widespread distribution in the entire Aegean is
the impressed ware. Although chronologically they are well-positioned in Central-West
Anatolia, lack of absolute dates and information on them from Struma Valley makes it
impossible to comment on their precise chronological position in this region. Whether
they appear simultaneously in both regions or there is a general diffusion that follows the
coastline (and in which direction?) are issues that are not yet solved.
It must be however pointed out that ceramic data is not convincing for a date in the 7th
millennium cal. BCE.
3. Sofia-Slatina
Slatina is the name of an eastern city district in Sofia which also gave its name to a
prehistoric site which has been salvage-excavated in 1985-1987 by V. Nikolov. The site
has ca. 4 m cultural accumulation with 8 ha coverage which encompass four different
time horizons from Early to LN. The EN layers, represented through two building layers,
at the site contained relatively well-preserved remains of post-houses (Nikolov 1992: 68;
Nikolov and Sirakova 2002).
The younger building phase (Layer 1) yielded remains of nine burnt wattle-and-daub
buildings. The best-preserved structure from this phase is called House 9 which is
described in detail by Nikolov and Sirakova (2002: 165-166). The house is two-roomed
433
with thin wattle-and-daub walls and stamped clay floor. In terms of inner architectural
elements, two clay rectilinear silos and an oven foundation have been spotted which
have been accompanied by pottery vessels, stone and bone tools, one fragment of female
figurine, loom-weights and fragments of “cult tables”.
The houses from the older building Phase 2 are very similar in plan and building
technique to the following phase. They are square-shaped (ca. 8 m in length) with two
inner divisions, stamped clay floor and one central oven foundation. Pottery vessels,
bone and stone artifacts, fragments of “cult tables”, axes, clay beads and figurines are
among the finds found in the house (Nikolov and Sirakova 2002).
Twelve carbon determinations are available from Level IV at Slatina which are made on
charcoal and seeds. These provide a date from 6970 to 6780 BP whose 1 sigma
calibrated values is 5970-5635 BCE (Reingruber and Thissen 2005: 316-317). As
Nikolov (1992: 70) suggests, the EN layers may be securely dated to 5800-5700 cal.
BCE. These dates obviously correspond to Ulucak IV (IVa-c).
Ceramics
The description of the pottery from Sofia-Slatina draws on Sirakova’s (Nikolov and
Sirakova 2002) analysis of the material.
The ceramics from the EN layers of Slatina have been evaluated under two main
categories: Slipped and unslipped wares. Majority of the assemblage is composed of
unslipped pottery which is described as sand and/or organic tempered, well-smoothed or
burnished, brown-gray-black colored and mainly well-fired. The wall thickness reaches
up to 1.2 cm. Three major vessel forms are associated with unslipped wares which are
bowls, large bowls and jars (or pots).
Deep conical bowls with convex profiles, shallow hemi-spherical bowls with convex
profiles, jars of various sizes with short vertical necks and closed vessels with sharp
wide carination on the belly are among the typical vessel types (Fig. 6.43). Jars with
short vertical necks are the most frequently observed vessel type while jars with long
necks are the fewest. The vessels may have carinated flat or ring bases. Few fragments of
flat lids have been found. Vertical pierced knobs have been observed on jars. Decoration
is rare but attested as relief bands with finger impressions on jars. Impressed decoration
in some cases is observed on the lower parts of the jars.
434
The slipped pottery is in most cases finer than the unslipped examples with thinner wall
thickness (0.4-10 mm), finer non-plastic inclusions and well-burnished surfaces. The slip
is considered to be manufactured from the same clay as the vessel and is normally dark
hues of red. The slipped pottery from the site may have painted decoration which is
applied in brown, white or dark red. The closed forms are painted only on the outside
while open forms like bowls might have painted decoration on the both sides.
Polychrome paint has also been at the site from the younger EN layer, albeit without
secure contexts.
Typical forms are hemi-spherical bowls, ring bases, pots with globular bellies and
everted rims, hole-mouth jars with simple or everted rims, jars with funnel necks,
carinated bowls and open shapes with pedestal bases.
Paint is executed in various styles. In both phases, red-on-orange/brown paint is more
typical than white-on-red which is rather typically associated with large bowls.
Triangular shapes with diagonal lines and horizontally or diagonally running thick bands
are observed on red painted vessels. Rim area is usually separately decorated with zig-
zags or “X” shapes.
White-on-red painted examples mostly display the net motif with fine thin lines and
triangles or lozenges. Pedestal bases may likewise be white-painted which mostly show
parallel horizontal lines.
Nikolov and Sirakova (2002: 178) indicate that ceramic data from the site is in
accordance with the developed Kremikovči Group of West Bulgaria and Classic
Starčevo phase from central Balkans.
Figure 6.43: A selection of vessel forms from Early Neolithic Slatina found in House 4.2 (after Nikolov and Sirakova 2002: Taf. 9)
435
4. Ceramic Sequence in the Region
We have summarized the archaeological data from three sites in Struma River Basin and
Sofia Plain which belong to varying culture-historical horizons. Above, detailed
comparisons of the ceramics with Ulucak is already provided for Kovačevo and Krainitsi
I, therefore, we will not repeat these points here. It is however worth noting that
Kovačevo Ia seems to belong to the earliest cultural phase in the region as indicated by
the carbon dates and pottery with distinctive style of painting. It is observed that even the
earliest layers at the site contained white-on-red painted pottery. The designs are mostly
confined to large zig-zags and upside-down “V”s accompanied with dots and wavy lines.
The distinctive trait of this early pottery is the dark colored background over which
white paint is applied. We have tentatively compared the designs of these painted
examples to Ilıpınar VIII incised pottery.
One of the interesting features about the development seen at Kovačevo is the
transformation from carinated or ‘s’-shaped profiled bowls to simpler hemi-spherical
shapes in the following phases. This is one of the most interesting yet confusing aspects
of the pottery development in the region which causes difficulties with regards to
interregional comparisons. The bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and carinated bowls are
among the most typical forms of early EC cultures in West Turkey which appear at the
end of a long-term development in the ceramic manufacture that started around 7000 cal.
BCE with very simple squat and hole-mouth forms. Yet in the Struma Valley, these
developed forms are associated with the earliest ceramic assemblages which instead of
becoming more complex and composite actually “degenerate” so to speak with the time
and become simpler. The “simpler” vessels from the later stages are very well attested at
Slatina, which belongs exactly to this late horizon that goes parallel to Classic Starčevo
phase of early 6th millennium cal. BCE. To summarize, the more globular or spherical
the ceramic forms are in the Struma Valley the younger they are. Moreover, pedestal
bases tend to occur later and they become taller in EN2 stage in the Struma Valley in
general (Chohadzhiev 2007: Figs. 11-12).
This point brings us to the relative dating of Krainitsi I pottery which, as already
mentioned, is compared to Thessalian EN pottery production by Chohadzhiev (2007:
133). A comparison of the earliest pottery from Slatina and Krainitsi I reveal many
similarities in the typology. In fact, most vessel forms, both restricted and unrestricted
are identical in shape and execution. The only difference between Slatina pottery and
436
Krainitsi I pottery is the absence of paint at the latter. The bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles
and carinated bowls are however barely present in the Krainitsi EN1 assemblage which
is dominated by spherical forms, plates, hole-mouth jars and jars with short necks. All of
these forms are however observed in the later phases of EN and fail to prove that
Krainitsi I is earlier than Kovačevo Ia. Moreover, as already discussed, presence of
impressed wares at Krainitsi I is an indication of a rather late date for this pottery as
impressed pottery is not found in the Aegean prior to 6100/6000 cal. BCE. One
additional “late” morphological feature of Krainitsi I pottery is the oval base. As it is
known, oval bases are a characteristic of Ulucak IV pottery, not appearing in Level V.
The only feature which imply an early date for Krainitsi I pottery is the absence of
pedestal bases. This is for instance the case in Kovačevo where the earliest pottery,
similar to Krainitsi I, has low-ring, disc and flat bases.
It is for the moment difficult to argue that Krainitsi I pottery represents yet an earlier
pottery stage in the Struma Valley that pre-dates Kovačevo I. Our impression is that
Slatina pottery is more related to Krainitsi I than to Kovačevo I. Absence of paint at
Krainitsi I is unfortunately left as an issue that is unsolved. One possible explanation
might be, besides the common argument that small areas were excavated and painted
sherds are always low in number, that there might be niches in the Struma Valley where
decoration with paint has not been adapted for a certain time, similar to what we observe
in several regions in Turkey. Krainitsi I pottery remains for the time being isolated but it
certainly contains elements from various EN stage on mainland Greece and LN-EC of
West Anatolia.
To conclude, Southwest Bulgaria and Central-West Anatolian early farming
communities shared many traits in their material culture but simultaneously maintained
and produced local characteristics. Southwest Bulgaria is, as a natural result of its
geographical location, is culturally more related and in close contact to Macedonian
Plain and Northern Balkans than to Western Anatolia.
437
M. Macedonia
Macedonia is understood as the catchments of river valleys Vardar (Aixos) and
Haliakmon which today cover sections of Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia
(FYROM) and Northern Greece. Both of these rivers and their related tributaries
discharge into the Aegean Sea in the vicinity of modern city Thessaloniki to the East of
Chalkidiki.
Runnels (1995) makes no mention of pre-Neolithic sites from Macedonian district in
Greece. The only known Paleolithic find is a skull dated to 260,000 BP from Petralona
Cave. Evidence on Mesolithic foragers (10,000-7000 BCE) completely lacks in the
region.
Paleolithic research in FYROM is still in its incipiency. Few find spots are known in the
country. For instance, Cave Makarovec in the Babuna river valley produced Upper
Paleolithic artifacts (Mitrevski 2003: 15). It is known that Crvena stijena and Malisina
stijena caves in Montenegro contained evidence of typical Gravettian and Epi-gravettian
assemblages with Castelnovian elements from the Late Glacial Maximum to the onset of
Holocene (Kozlowski and Kaczanowska 2004; Merkyte 2003: 310). It is understood that
the region was inhabited prior to Neolithic period, however, more research is needed in
order to understand the Paleolithic and Mesolithic occupation in the region.
The Neolithic sequence in the Axios/Vardar river valley is better understood due to the
relatively high number of excavations which number 41 only in the territory of FYROM.
In the region, Neolithic sites are either in the form of settlement mounds (locally called
Toumba) or flat settlements on river terraces. EN period covers more than half a
millennium (6400/6200-5700 BCE) in the FYROM. Middle Neolithic is another long
period in FYROM corresponding to 5700-5000 BCE and LN covers the entire 5th
millennium BCE (for details see Mitrevski 2003).
Mitrevski (2003: 29-30) points out that monochrome stage similar to that of Struma
Valley or Proto-Starčevo phase has been identified at a single-layer site Zlastrana 35 km
North of Ohrid on a mountainous terrain. The site contained around 20 wattle-and-daub
buildings and coarse monochrome pottery occasionally decorated with impressions and
engravings. Impressed pottery is compared to Adriatic Impresso Cultures, however, it is
not indicated what kind of impressions are observed on the vessels. Absence of white
painted pottery at Zlastrana is construed as an evidence of an early date of this site. In
438
my opinion, Zlastrana, standing alone, is not adequate to prove a monochrome stage in
FYROM as it is a single-layer site and carbon dates are not available from its deposits.
The better defined EN stage in FYROM is represented with settlement mound Dolno
Trnovo where white-on-red painted pottery, barbotine and impressed decorated pottery
constitute the ceramic assemblage.
In Greek Macedonian district, Nea Nikomedeia, Servia V and Yannitsa B (Giannitsa B)
are the best documented sites which contain EN cultural sequence. The pottery
assemblages are clearly dominated by fine red slipped burnished pottery which is
typically accompanied by low amounts of medium-coarse impressed and fine painted
(white-on-red and red-on-cream) wares. Middle Neolithic period is largely documented
at Servia, Vasilika and Sitagroi (Alram-Stern 1996: 124). It should be noted here that EN
of Greek Macedonia corresponds to Middle Neolithic of Thessaly and early LN of
Thessally is equal to Middle Neolithic in Macedonia. EN (“monochrome stage”) as
defined on Thessalian Plain is not known in Greek Macedonia (Perlés 2001: 99). There
is strong agreement that Macedonian Neolithic emerged as a result of movement of
farming groups into the area around 6000 BCE.
Below, we will present Nea Nikomedeia, Yannista B and Anzabegova in more detail
which present us with a representational picture of the region in the EN.
1. Nea Nikomedeia
The site is located on the southern Giannitsa plain 10.5 km Northeast of Veroia on an
altitude of 9-10 m above sea level in Macedonian district of Greece. Nea Nikomedeia is
a two m high settlement mound which covers an area of 220 x 110 m. The mound has
been used as a Christian cemetery. The prehistoric cultural accumulations contain
remains from EN and LN periods with no occupation dating to the Middle Neolithic
period (Rodden 1962: 267-268). LN occupation is primarily represented with a radial
ditch.
The mound was discovered during a road construction which caused damaged to the site.
Salvage excavations have been conducted under the direction by R.J. Rodden in 1961-
1964.
439
Excavations revealed three major building phases which altogether comprise 24 house
plans. Buildings are identified as foundation trenches or rows of post-holes (Fig. 6.44).
All of the houses show rectilinear ground plans (square or rectangular) while occasional
partitions in the house have also been attested in both phases (Pyke 1996: Tab. 3.1.). It is
suggested that the houses were constructed of wattle-and-daub technique. Central posts
to support the presumably pitched roofs have also been documented. Floors were of
beaten clay. Burnt areas have been identified during the excavations as ovens and
hearths (Pyke 1996: 50-51). Rodden identified one of the houses (Group 4-Structure 1
according to Pyke’s classification) which measured bigger (11.78 x 13.64 m) than the
other structures as a “shrine”.
Domestic animals, ovicaprines, pig and cattle, provided the basis of the protein
requirement for the community whereas wild resources were consumed rarely. Lithic
industry is confined to locally available raw materials flint and quartz. Obsidian is absent
during the EN. Tools were produced on blades and blade segments. Flake tools, such as
scrapers, are also present. Polished axes, various bone implements, grinding instruments,
sling missiles, clay stamps, so-called “ear plugs”, beads and clay figurines are among the
typical finds of EN assemblage (Rodden 1962).
Sixteen radiocarbon dates are available from the EN levels at the site. Two of the three
samples analyzed in the 1960’s seem too early and with large deviations (Q-655:
8180±150 BP and GX-679: 7780±270 BP). These dates are currently considered to be
Figure 6.44: Plan of the superimposed EN structures from Nea Nikomedeia (after Pyke 1996: Fig. 2.1)
440
wrong as the recent Oxford datings contradict them. Bone and seed samples which were
analyzed in the 1980’s are more reliable and consistent. These provide a range from
6390-5670 cal. BCE (at 1 σ) for the EN settlement (Perlés 2001: 108; Reingruber and
Thissen 2005: 306).
Ceramics
P. Yiouni (1996a; 1996b) published an extensive report on the EN pottery from the
mound which will be summarized below.
All three building layers from the site contained homogeneous pottery. Petrographic
analysis of the pottery from the site revealed six different fabrics composed of different
types, size and amount of non-plastic inclusions. Majority of the inclusions in the clay
matrix turned out to be of mineral substance while few organic inclusions have also been
detected. 96% of the pottery from Nea Nikomedeia is undecorated. The remaining 4%
comprise of painted, impressed and plastic decorated sherds. Plain wares are further
divided into coated (73%) and uncoated (27%) variants. Coated wares carry either red-
brown slip (46%) or pink colored slip (27%). They are typically burnished.
Uncoated wares are burnished wares with light brown (beige) or red-brown colors
without any application of slip over the surface. Beige uncoated wares occur with 24% in
the assemblage.
Painted pottery from the site is few in number. There are two types: Red-on-cream and
cream-on-red painted wares (Fig. 6.45). Red-on-cream painted wares occur rarely with
porcelain-like cream colored fine and glossy slip (4%). Patterns applied on the body
have been analyzed by Washburn (1984) who distinguished eight separate categories of
Figure 6.45: Red-on-cream painted vessels from Nea Nikomedeia (modified after Youni 1996b: Figs. 5.35; 5.36)
441
composition (A-H) on 245 painted sherds from the site. Majority of the patterns are
applied on bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles and are composed of triangles, lozenges, wavy
lines and zig-zags.
9% of the decorated pottery is made of impressed wares. Impressions are observed only
on the outer surface and are executed with finger nails, finger tips or by pinching. 13%
of the impressed pieces have red-brown or pink slip on their surface.
Plastic application is another decoration techniques observed at the site. Among these
especially “face vessels” constitute an interesting category. These are medium-large
sized slipped vessels which depict human faces, silhouettes or animal snouts. Rather
simple or linear applications have also been applied on the vessels.
Jars with long vertical and everted necks, jars with short necks, bowls with slight or
pronounced ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with convex profiles, deep bowls with convex
profiles, bowls with straight profiles and dishes are the typical forms at the site (Fig.
6.46). Few hole-mouth jars have also been identified. Small vertical handles on jar or
bowl bellies, short tubular lugs, knobs and pierced knobs are observed. Bases are flat
(45%), ring or disc shaped (47%). Few pedestal bases have been recovered. Rims are
typically simple or everted. Askoid vessels and polypod vessels are also present in the
assemblage.
Figure 6.46: Summary of forms from Early Neolithic Nea Nikomedeia (modified after Yiouni 1996b)
442
2. Yannitsa B
Yannitsa B is one of the few currently excavated sites which yielded EN material that is
well-comparable to Nea Nikomedeia.
The site is located in the southeast section
of densely inhabited city Yannitsa on the
Eastern part of Yannitsa basin. The
excavations continue since 1989 under the
supervision of P. Chrysostomou. The site is
reported to contain Early and LN deposits.
It is suggested that the settlement was
abandoned during the Middle Neolithic due
to the rising ground water. LN site which
sits on top of the 1 m thick EN cultural
accumulation reaches 6-8 ha. The
soundings revealed three superimposed
buildings from the EN age. The earliest of
these has an elliptical shape with a diameter
of 4 m. The younger buildings are post-
wall structures with a rectangular shape. These three structures from Yannitsa B are the
only EN architectural remains from the region since the excavations at Nea Nikomedeia.
Archaeobotanical studies indicate that the site was inhabited by a farming community
who cultivated einkorn wheat and emmer wheat (Andreou et al. 2001: 293; Alram-Stern
1996: 389-391).
Ceramics
The EN ceramics from the site is to a great extent composed of plain fine-medium
burnished wares with red, reddish brown, brown and black surface colors. Plain
burnished wares are accompanied with white-on-red or red-on-cream painted wares as
well as few coarse looking impressed wares. The painted patterns are confined to thick
bands, large triangles, wavy lines and curvilinear motifs. Impressed wares are made with
finger nails, finger tips or with an instrument onto the outer surface and are mainly
associated with pots (Fig. 6.47). Frequent vessel forms are deep hemispherical bowls
with raised bases, spherical bowls and jars with funnel necks.
Figure 6.47: Painted and impressed sherds from Yannitsa B (after Alram-Stern 1996: Abb. 42-43)
443
3. Anzabegova
The site is located in central FYROM on the middle Vardar Valley in district Ovče Polje.
The mound has been cut through by railroad construction. Earliest investigation of the
site took place in 1960 by archaeologists from Ljubljana University and Skopje
Museum. More excavation areas, albeit all small in size, on the north site of the site were
exposed by American-Yugoslavian joint excavations in 1969-1970 which were directed
by M. Gimbutas and M. Garašanin. The American team excavated 24 squares measuring
3X3 m while the Yugoslavian team excavated nine grids measuring 5 x 5 m. The results
of the American excavation have been published as a monograph in 1976 which however
received harsh critique from Milojčić (1978) and Garašanin (1998) who describe the
book as “irreführend” and “unbrauchbar”.
The stratigraphy of the mound relies on three scattered small excavation areas covering
solely 22m2. According to Gimbutas, the mound contains nine levels of four distinct
periods which are called Ia, Ib, II-III and IV from EN to LN. Garašanin (1998: 29)
presents an alternative stratigraphy of the mound relying on his own excavations which
covered an area of 230 m2. According to his sequence, Anza I, encompasses actually
three sub-phases and represents the EN strata on the mound.
Problematic are also the published carbon dates from the site (see Milojčić 1978: Tab.
1). Seven carbon dates are available from the earliest stratum Anzabegova Ia which give
a large span from 6450 to 5480 cal. BCE. Gimbutas dates the earliest stage to 6100-
5900 cal. BCE which seems reasonable (see Reingruber and Thissen 2005: 319-320).
Anza I, much disturbed by the upper Layer II, is represented by pits and mud-bricks in
one excavation area. Anza II-III is composed of post-holes and stone foundations. Anza
IV identified as lime plaster floors is highly damaged by Roman and modern remains.
Unfortunately, no house plans are depicted in the final publication and the information
on the architecture is very scarce, however, few photos provide an impression of the
architectural remains from Levels I and II.
Polished axes, bone tools, figurines and fine pottery are typical finds from the Anza I
period. The basal settlement has been founded by fully-fledged farmer-herders who
brought domesticated cereals and animals with them. The subsistence was provided by
einkorn wheat, six-hulled barley, peas and lentils as well as by sheep-goats (Renfrew, J.
1976).
444
Ceramics
In this section, the sequence presented by Garašanin (1998) will be used as the main
source as the sequence provided by Gimbutas includes serious methodological and
chronological problems.
Garašanin (1998: 30-31) distinguishes four major fabrics: Coarse, Medium, Fine and
Painted Wares. Coarse wares are seldom found in the first level. Medium wares are
frequent in Level I and include brown, red, grey colored wares which are frequently
slipped and smoothed. Fine wares include well-burnished and thin-walled vessels with
red and brown colors. The earliest layer at the site contained mainly medium red slipped
and brown wares. White-on-red painted wares carry floral motifs and triangles. White
painted red slipped wares are common in Level Ia-b and already with Ic their quantity
decreases. In Ib, floral motifs are not observed anymore, instead appear the ladder motif.
In Level II, painted wares and fines wares become very rare. Curvilinear net motifs are
first observed with Level II as well as the channel decoration and impressions made with
an instrument that leaves triangles on the surface. Fine black burnished ware also first
appears with Level II.
Impressed pottery made with finger nails and fingers are present from the beginning
onwards, although rare in the earliest Layer Ia. In Level Ib, impresso pottery outnumbers
barbotine pottery. Barbotine decoration is attested with Level I, but increases especially
in Level II. Levels III and IV are out of the chronological scope of this study as they
represent the developed Starčevo and transitional Vinča periods.
Frequently appearing forms in Level I are hole-mouth bowl, bowls with ‘s’-shaped
profile, simple bowls with convex profiles, hole-mouth jars, jars with short necks, jars
Figure 6.48: White-on-red painted bowls from Anzabegova I (after Garašanin et al. 1971: Figs. 4-5)
445
with long vertical neck and shallow bowls with convex sides. Bases are mainly of ring,
disc and flat types. Cross shaped bases are also observed. Rims are simple or slightly
everted. Small vertical handles on jar bellies and vertical tunnel lugs are observed. The
pattern of paint at this stage is coarse looking. Thick bands, triangles, zig-zags and
lozenges are recognized on the outer surfaces of red slipped fine wares (Fig. 6.48).
Garašanin suggests that Anzabegova-Vršnik I group is contemporary with Proto-Sesklo
stage of Thessaly and Nea Nikomedeia and Servia in northern Greece.
4. Comparisons with Central-West Anatolia
All three sites which are presented above have a good number of common archaeological
traits with Central-West Anatolian sites ranging from architectural techniques to pottery.
One of the most important characteristics of Macedonian EN sites is that they contain
plain burnished, painted and impressed pottery from the very beginning of the Neolithic
period onwards. This means that an early phase similar to those in Anatolia or
Thessalian Plain without the appearance of painted and impressed wares is not attested
in the Vardar/Aixos Basin. Current evidence strongly suggests that the earliest sedentary
farming villages in the region do not appear before 6000/5900 cal. BCE. As mentioned
above, EN of Vardar/Aixos Basin corresponds to MN of Thessaly and consequently final
LN and EC of West Turkey. Newly analyzed carbon samples from Nea Nikomedeia
confirm this statement.
The pottery assemblages of the region are predominated by fine-medium plain burnished
wares. As mentioned above, 96% of pottery from Nea Nikomedeia is made out of plain
wares (Yiouni 1996a). Fine wares are especially characterized by the red slipped and
well-burnished vessels and black burnished wares. Coarse wares are seldom, although
they increase through time, as observed at Anzabegova from Ia to Ib-c (Garašanin 1998).
Fine RSBW constitute one of the significant common ceramic traits between Central-
West Anatolia and Macedonian Plain. However, quantitatively, in Central-West Anatolia
they are more numerous than in Macedonia.
Painted wares display two main variations in the region: White-on-red and cream-on-red
painted wares. White-on-red paint is undoubtedly an influence from the Struma Basin
while cream-on-red painted wares are known from Thessaly and West Anatolia. Patterns
on the painted wares are very similar at all sites we have presented. Large triangles,
wavy lines, zig-zags and thick bands are very common. At Anzabegova, the change in
446
the painted designs can be observed as the cultural sequence at this site continues into
the Middle and LN periods (Garašanin 1998). On the other hand, at Nea Nikomedeia and
Yannitsa B such a long sequence is not present and it is not possible to reconstruct the
cultural sequence into the Middle and LN periods.
At Nea Nikomedeia, the painted wares constitute around 3% of the ceramic assemblage
(Yiouni 1996a). At Ulucak, however, they are represented with <1% in all levels. As the
preservation of the painted vessels at Ulucak is very poor, it is difficult to compare the
patterns from these settlements. Nevertheless, thick bands and big triangles, frequently
found on Nea Nikomedeia vessels, are indeed attested at Ulucak at building phases IVh,
IVi and Va which date around 6100-6000 cal. BCE. It seems like even though the
painted wares are extremely few in number at Ulucak, the style of the paint is very
similar to contemporary sites in Vardar/Aixos Basin. At Ulucak, the paint is applied in
red over light brown-cream colored surface in level Va. Painted sherds from IVh, on the
other hand, are cream painted over red surface. At Nea Nikomedeia, too, both red-on-
cream and cream-on-red variants are attested.
Impressed wares are executed with the same techniques at all three sites and they are
almost identical to each other. Close similarities are also obvious with the Central-West
Anatolian impressed wares. Similar to Macedonian examples, Central-West Anatolian
impressed wares show coarser appearance than red slipped wares. They are applied on
the outer surface of a vessel with finger nails, finger tips or with an instrument, and the
impressions are not connected to each other. Impressed wares constitute one of the best
chronological links between Central-West Anatolia and Macedonian Plain. Impressed
wares recovered in both regions must have common origins. Similar to Nea Nikomedeia,
Anza and Yannitsa B, at Ulucak IV and other Central-West Anatolian sites, impressed
wares co-exist with the red slipped wares.
Face vessels from Nea Nikomedeia are not matched at Anzabegova and Yannitsa B, but
very similar vases have been found at Achilleion IIIb/IVa (Gimbutas et al. 1989) and
Hacılar I (Mellaart 1970). Hacılar I face vessels are painted with red designs while at
Nea Nikomedeia they are red slipped and with coffee-bean eyes. Ulucak
anthropomorphic vessel has also similarities to Nea Nikomedeia examples as they too
have human faces on the vessel neck.
447
In terms of vessel shapes, common traits clearly outnumber the contrasting features. First
of all, the open forms with ‘s’-shaped and convex profiles are common to both regions.
Jars with funnel necks as well as jars with short necks are likewise found in both regions.
Jar without neck and globular body is among the other important common vessel shape
produced in both regions. Rim and base types are also similar to a large extent. At
Ulucak IV, however, flat and disc bases are more common while in Macedonia raised
and ring bases are typical. Small vertical handles on jar bellies are found at Ulucak IVb-c
and one example is known from Va. Absence of true handles from both regions is
another common characteristic of pottery. In short, vessel typology of Nea Nikomedeia
and Ulucak IV is matched almost in its entirety (Fig. 6.49).
Different are the certain vessel, lug-handle and base forms. Askoid vessels are not
known in the Central-West Anatolia, although a very similar specimen is recovered at
Höyücek’s Shrine Phase which is called a “boot shaped vessel” (Duru 2007; Fig. 6.50).
Pierced knobs and tubular lugs from both regions are morphologically different. Raised
ring bases, cross-shaped bases and pedestal bases are foreign features for Central-West
Anatolian assemblages. It should be noted however that few cross shaped bases has been
Figure 6.49: Comparative illustration of the vessel shapes and decorated wares (Nea Nikomedeia after Youni 1996b: Figs 5.4,5.6,5.8,5.10,5.36,5.55; Anzabegova after Gimbutas 1976: Fig. 19,20; Garašanin 1998: Abb. 2).
448
attested at Ege Gübre (pers. obs.) while they are completely lacking at Ulucak. Typical
thick flattened rims, long-thin tubular lugs, double-knobs, bead-rims and oval bases of
Central-West Anatolia are absent at the Macedonian Basin. What is also missing at
Macedonian sites is the small vertical handle or knob on the jar rim.
How can we interpret the close
affinities of ceramic assemblages at
both regions? EN sites in the Vardar
Basin definitely have their origins
outside of the region. However, it is
difficult to pinpoint the precise
origin of these communities. The
high similarities in the ceramics
(especially Nea Nikomedeia) to Central-West Anatolian sites may be indicating that
these groups had their origins in West Anatolia. It should be noted that the similar traits
in the material culture are not restricted to the pottery. The architecture of Ulucak Va and
Vb, characterized by rectilinear post-wall buildings, are well comparable to the
architecture from the three sites we presented. Other material cultural elements, such as
clay stamps, figurines, sling missiles, bone tools are likewise very analogous in both
regions. However, it needs to be pointed out that same objects are known from Thessaly,
too. Therefore, one cannot easily conclude that Macedonian farming settlements were
founded by West Anatolian groups. It seems like both West Anatolia and Thessaly
contributed to the origin of Neolithic groups in the northern Aegean. Perhaps an Aegean
maritime exchange network and mobility in the area led some groups to inspect new
regions suitable for farming and settling. There may well be multiple origins of the EN
communities who chose to settle Vardar/Aixos Basin around 6000 BCE. What is clear
however Nea Nikomedeia represents the only site in Southeast Europe which shows
extensive similarities to Ulucak than any other site we have examined from the region.
It seems like with the time Vardar/Aixos Basin developed its own peculiar material
culture and pottery style, although strong connections to Thessaly and Struma Basin
during the later stages of EN are felt. Especially, presence of white-on-red paint is a
manifestation of contacts with the Struma Basin groups. In the Middle and LN, typical
elements of Starčevo Culture are easily detected in terms of fabrics and forms, as the
data from Anzabegova well demonstrates.
Figure 6.50: 1: Boot-shaped vessel from Höyücek Shrine Phase (after Duru and Umurtak 2005: Pl. 62.1) 2-3: Askoid vessels from Nea Nikomedeia (after Yiouni 1996b: Fig. 5.9)
449
N. Thessaly (Larissa and Karditsa Plains)
Thessaly comprises two connected large alluvial plains surrounded by mountain ranges
where the earliest sedentary farming settlements of Greece were discovered and
intensively researched. These are settlement mounds (Magoula in Greek) which are
created through the long-term continuous occupation with mud-based architecture
similar to Anatolian and Thracian settlements.75 More than hundred EN sites were
located on the plain provided by permanent water sources which supported dense
population and socio-economic stability during this period (Demoule and Perlès 1993).
Recently, excavations at the Theopetra Cave demonstrated that the Neolithic occupation
during the EN was not restricted to the fertile alluvial plain (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2005).
In Thessaly, foundations of the Neolithic research have been established by various
eminent scholars such as C. Tsountas, who conducted the initial excavations at Sesklo in
the very beginning of the 20th century. Late 1950’s and 1960’s experience a series of
significant excavations in the region such as at Sesklo and Soufli Magula by D.R.
Theocharis, and Otzaki and Argissa by V. Milojčić. In early 1970’s, Achilleion, another
major EN Thessalian mound, is re-excavated and the results are published as a
monograph in 1989.
The above mentioned mile-stone research constructed reliable chronological sequence of
the region based on both archaeological data and absolute dates. The current
periodization of the EN into ENI, ENII and ENIII, distinguishes three stages which is
partly based on Milojčić’s scheme who named these phases “Frühkeramik”, “Proto-
Sesklo” and “Vor-Sesklo”. EN period, dated from 6500/6400 to 5800/5700 cal. BCE, is
followed by the Middle Neolithic, which is also known as the “Sesklo Culture”. Middle
Neolithic period covers ca. 5800-5300 cal. BCE (Gallis 1996a: 120). Recent re-
examination and analysis of radiocarbon data from EN sites by Perlès (2001: 110)
confirmed this dating to a large extent as it provided a range from 6540-5950 cal. BCE
for the EN period. The sub-phases of the “Neolithic Culture” are distinguished based on
the changes in the pottery decoration and forms. A demographical or cultural break from
EN to MN cannot be identified. The development of the pottery takes place locally and
as a result of responses to the changes occurring in the neighboring regions.
75 For an ecological assessment and spatio-temporal distribution of Tell-sites in Anatolia and Southeast Europe see Rosenstock 2005.
450
For sake of clarity, we have to point out that EN in Greece encompasses the LN and first
two centuries of EC in Turkey. Middle Neolithic of Greece corresponds to EC and first
two centuries of Middle Chalcolithic of Anatolia. It is perhaps more appropriate to use
only the absolute dates in our discussions as the other terms are making the issue
complicated.
Although Paleolithic and Mesolithic findspots were located in various parts of Greece,
until recently these were lacking in Thessaly, except the six sites identified during
extensive surveys of Runnels which are dated to the Lower-Middle Paleolithic period.76
There is extensive population increase during the Late Middle Paleolithic of Mousterian
type in Thessaly, with sites numbering around 30, which are typically located along the
Peneios River. Early Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian) is hardly represented in the whole
Greece, which experiences increasing occupation of the coastal plains with the late
Upper Paleolithic (or Gravettian and Epi-Gravettian) (Runnels 1995: 709-712). The
Mesolithic occupation of Greece is demonstrated at Sidari on Corfu and Franchthi Cave
in southern Greece while presence of Mesolithic foragers in Thessaly has been a much
welcome recent discovery. According to Runnels (1995: 726), there is substantial
cultural hiatus between the Paleolithic and Mesolithic cultures of Greece reflected in the
lithic industries, subsistence modes and burial-ritual customs; the latter being very much
in accordance with Southwest Asian Epi-Paleolithic traits. He asserts that mainland
Greece was slowly but increasingly inhabited by foragers with Southwest Asian origins,
starting in the late Mesolithic and intensifying during the Neolithic.
In Thessaly, pre-Neolithic ages have been primarily researched at Theopetra Cave
excavated in years 1987-2000. The research of the cave provided an invaluable source of
information for understanding the pre-Neolithic occupation of the area. The cave, located
on the western edge of the plain, in close proximity to the Pindus Mountains, revealed
deposits from the Middle Paleolithic to the LN periods. Mesolithic and EN occupation of
Theopetra Cave is brought in discussions about the neolithization of Thessaly and
modern Greece in general. Kyparissi-Apostolika (2005) emphasizes the intensive plant
gathering activities of Mesolithic foragers which is clearly demonstrated by the wide
range of plant species, including wide progenitors of einkorn wheat and various pulses,
identified in cave deposits. She suggests that domestication of einkorn wheat (Triticum
monococcum) might have occurred through the intensification of plant management by
76 For a detailed account of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic research in Greece see Runnels 1995: 700-704.
451
the local Mesolithic-EN foragers-farmers who, after managing that, dispersed to the
various regions of Greece in at least three directions (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2006: 64). In
other words, a local transitional stage from hunter-gatherer lifestyle to farming is
suggested which should demonstrate that EN settlements of Thessaly were not of
completely non-local origins. Indeed, a “Near Eastern” origin of the Neolithic way of life
in Thessaly is simply inconceivable for most local scholars, who prefer an extreme
indigenist view of neolithization in Thessaly (see for instance Andreou et al. 2001: 318-
319).
As already mentioned, the research at Theopetra Cave is more than welcome for Aegean
Neolithic studies as it allows us to compare and contrast Holocene hunter-gatherers with
agro-pastoralists who occupied Thessaly. There are several points in Kyparissi-
Apostolika’s indigenous model based on the interpretation of archaeological and
botanical data which received criticisms. First of all, Thissen (2005: Fig. 2) argued that
there is a 1000 year of gap between the Mesolithic and EN carbon dates from the cave
which are supposed to cover the transitional period. The gap indicated by the carbon
dates impedes the claim of gradual transition from hunter-gatherer to farming lifestyle in
the cave. Secondly, the issue of local domestication of wheat and barley: As Kyparissi-
Apostolika (2005: 175) indicated, domesticated barley remains identified in the
Mesolithic layers were intrusive from the upper Neolithic deposits and there is
admittedly no positive indication of cultivation of any plant remains during the
Mesolithic in the Aegean.77 Moreover, big majority of the wild progenitors of major
crops (emmer, einkorn, barley, pea, lentil, chickpea, bitter vetch and flax) identified by
Zohary and Hopf (1993) as “the founder crops” did not grow in Greece. In the light of
current archaeobotanical data, it is argued that the sudden co-occurrence of the founder
crops in their domesticated state in any given region is an excellent indication of extra-
local domestication, and penetration into the area by those who possessed these
domesticated species and the knowledge to cultivate them (Colledge, Conolly and
Shennan 2004; see also Diamond 2002). This pattern of simultaneous occurrence is not
only valid for mainland Greece but also applies to Central and West Anatolia (Asouti
and Fairbairn 2002: 189).
Another interesting point related to the practice of farming is raised by Perlés (2001:
118) who points out that the location of the EN sites in Thessaly are concentrated in 77 For instance, domesticated cereals and pulses found in the Epi-Paleolithic layers of Öküzini Cave are interpreted as contaminants in the light of AMS determinations (Martinoli 2004: Tab. 2).
452
areas where annual precipitation is the lowest in the country (600 m or less) and actually
has same values as in the Eastern Mediterranean. She argues that the communities who
settled Thessaly, despite the low rainfall, aimed to continue the habits and practices
already gained in their homeland. Moreover, the domesticated species would have easily
adapted to an environment most similar to their homeland instead of an area where
rainfall is higher.
Thirdly, somehow Kyparissi-Apostolika fails to mention the origin of domesticated
animals (especially goat/sheep) found in big quantities in the Neolithic deposits of the
cave. It suffices here to mention that intensive research in Europe did not produce
evidence for local process of domestication of major livestock animals whereas
osteological evidence of initial and transitional stages of animal domestication, along
with the genetic evidence, demonstrates that this process has taken place in various
localities of Southwest Asia and Eastern Mediterranean (Bollongino 2006: 51-52).
Another issue is the evidence offered by the material culture which is important in order
to reveal the degree of continuity from the late Mesolithic into the Neolithic period. EN
deposits, despite certain stratigraphical problems, contained pottery fabrics and forms
that are fully compatible with the pottery from EN Thessalian sites which are fully-
developed monochrome, red-brown colored and fine, rarely incised, impressed or
painted (Kyparissi-Apostolika 1999: 148). This is an indication of an absence of local
“discovery” of pottery. It may likewise point out that the cave was inhabited or used by
farmers who are of non-local origins and produced fine pottery. When considered
together with the carbon dates, it seems plausible that the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers
abandoned the cave prior to the arrival of farmers or they have co-existed for certain
period of time before they moved on to other localities. Especially the presence of
impressed pottery at the cave indicates that it was not inhabited at the very beginning of
the EN in Thessaly as impressed wares appear only at the end of the EN in the region
(Reingruber 2008).
Finally, one major issue concerning Kyparissi-Apostolika’s indigenist model is related
to the demographical aspect. As already mentioned, mainland Greece during the
Mesolithic, despite period-oriented extensive and intensive surveys, was thinly occupied
(for details see Runnels 1995; Perlès 2001: 25). Perhaps it is significant to underline the
fact that more than 30 Middle Paleolithic sites were located in Thessaly whereas the
same survey failed to locate any Mesolithic sites. The geomorphological factors may
453
have played a role in destroying Mesolithic find spots if they are comprised of scatters of
lithics and hearths, however, if a local transition to sedentism and farming occurred in
the area, then we should expect existence of year-round settlements with dwellings,
storage units, grinding instruments, burials and evidence of initial controlling of local
plants and animals, similar to those found at Southwest Asian Natufian-PPNA sites (see
Bar-Yosef and Valla 1992).
Kyparissi-Apostolika (1999: 149) indicates that probably around 20 people inhabited the
cave during the Neolithic. The question is how local communities who apparently lived
in small and, most probably, mobile groups can achieve enormous rates of reproduction
which enable them to disperse all over Greece in such a short time?
Obviously, there are some major argumentative gaps in the model offered by Kyparissi-
Apostolika who in an attempt to disprove diffusionist model of neolithization adapts an
extreme indigenous position and subsequently (and ironically) falls into the trap of
extreme diffusionism when it comes to explaining neolithization of other areas in
Greece. An objective and unbiased examination of the data from Theopetra Cave and
early EN sites make an explanation which does not involve leapfrog colonization78 and
demic diffusion79 of agro-pastoral communities via maritime and/or land routes from
Southwest Asia impossible. In this respect, I consider the maritime model offered by
Perlés in several works (2001; 2003; 2005) as a well-thought, data-reliant and, most
importantly, unbiased approach to the question of neolithization of Thessaly.
Another important issue related to the neolithization of Greece which is of interest to us
is the question of “aceramic” or “pre-pottery” Neolithic sites, similar to those found in
Southwest Asia and Central Anatolia. Milojčić was the first to introduce this notion to
the prehistoric archaeology in Greece after his excavations at Argissa. Theocharis
adapted this view mainly based on the data presented by Milojčić, who emphasized for
example microlithic character of the Argissa stone tools. Major basal deposits excavated
at Thessallian EN sites such as Sesklo, Soufli Magula, Achilleion and Gediki, have been
initially interpreted as of being devoid of ceramics (Reingruber 2005). Re-excavation of
Achilleion by a team led by Gimbutas demonstrated that there is no pre-pottery deposits
78 Leapfrog colonization is described by Zvelebil (2001: 2) as “selective colonization of an area by small groups, who target optimal areas for exploitation, thus forming an enclave settlement among native inhabitants.” 79 Demic diffusion is defined by Zvelebil and Lillie (2000: 62) as follows: “Demic diffusion denotes a sequential colonization by random migration carried out by family groups. It occurs over many generations and involves slowly expanding farming population, colonizing new areas by the “budding off” of daughter hamlets from the old agricultural settlements.”
454
at the site as proposed by Theocharis (Gimbutas et al. 1989: 25-26). Re-examination of
other “PPN” deposits, in some cases analysis of the site reports and re-consideration of
the issue by several specialists including Bloedow (1991), Demoule and Perlés (1993),
Perlés (2001) and Reingruber (2005; 2008), demonstrated that none of the Thessalian
EN sites contained deposits completely devoid of pottery or baked clay. On the other
hand, it became rather clear that “discovery” of Aceramic stage in Greece has been a
state of mind, more correctly a consequence of “Zeitgeist” as put by Reingruber (2005:
157), created after the discovery of PPN sites in Southwest Asia in the 1950-1960’s. As
already mentioned, early layers of Hacılar have also been interpreted and published as
“Aceramic” by Mellaart who excavated the site in 1957-1960. Existence of a PPN stage
in West Anatolia is still far from being undisputed. Today most scholars doubt the
existence of a PPN stage on mainland Greece but they agree that the earliest deposits
contained only small amounts of pottery (Perlès 2001: 96).
In accordance with Perlès (2001), it seems to us more appropriate to call this early stage
as the “initial Neolithic” which begins around 6500/6400 cal. BCE. Existence of such an
early stage in Thessaly reaching back to the middle of the 7th millennium cal. BCE is
very important for our purposes because it presents us with the only comparison chance
of Ulucak V material with the settlements on the western side of the Aegean Sea and
Southeast Europe in general. Such a comparison enables us to show not only common
features but also divergent elements in the ceramic technology, fabrics and morphology
developed simultaneously on both sides of the Aegean.
Even if it would be far-fetched to assume that communities of both regions were in
direct contact, one line of archaeological evidence is in favor of sustained social-cultural
contacts through millennia: Melos obsidian. It is known that both Central-West
Anatolian and Thessalian sites acquired obsidian from the various sources on Melos
island. Although the obsidian from Ulucak IV-V are currently subject to Neutron
Activation Analysis and results are not available yet, samples analyzed from Dedecik-
Heybelitepe in Torbalı-İzmir demonstrated that Melos obsidian was procured by Central-
West Anatolian LN-EC communities (Herling et al. 2008).
It is yet far from clear that the way in which Melos obsidian arrived to Thessalian and
West Anatolian settlements. According to Perlès (1992), there is a good possibility that
“middle-men” existed operating in the Aegean Catchment area, who extracted the raw
material from its source, pre-formed the cores and distributed the material to the
455
communities in the mainland. These “middle-men” possessed the technical ability and
know-how to manage maritime travel and obsidian knapping—skills otherwise would
not be acquired by the sedentary inland farmers. Model created by Perlès is very
intriguing and archaeological data has yet to be tested against the assumptions of the
model. What is however beyond doubt is West Anatolian and Thessalian early farming
communities were involved in the procurement of raw materials, notably the
archaeologically visible obsidian from Melos Island, which provides the excellent means
for cultural contacts whether it involved direct procurement model, a central place,
market exchange or existence of middle-men.
In this section, we will evaluate the ceramic data from Sesklo, Argissa and Achilleion as
we think these present a representative picture of the EN ceramic development in the
region.
1. Sesklo
Sesklo is a settlement mound located on the small coastal plain of Volos, a modern
harbor city only 9 km East of Sesklo. The site is 155 m above sea level, containing
around 4.5 m of cultural deposits, in the region of Thessaly, district Magnisia. The
excavations first take place in 1901 by C. Tsountas who identified EN, LN and Early
Bronze Age occupations on the area called “Acropolis” or “A”. Excavations by D.R.
Theocharis began following an earthquake in 1955, which revealed a section with the
stratigraphical sequence of the mound. Theocharis conducted excavations not only on
the Northeast section of the “Acropolis” but also in the vicinity of the site (Areas B,C,D
and E) and managed to reach the sterile soil. He also exposed more EN strata and reveal
the actual size of the mound until the end of the excavations in 1977. 4500 m2 area is
excavated on the mound and in the surrounding landscape which suggested that the
settled area might have covered around 12 hectares (Andreou et al. 2001: 262).
Theocharis distinguished four major stages represented on the mound which represents
the EN period. Of these, A-C belong to EN whereas D represents “Pre-Pottery” stratum
which has been reached in areas “A” and “C”.
As mentioned above, there are serious doubts concerning the presence of a PPN stage at
Sesklo. The site reports and publications were meticulously investigated by E. Bloedow
(1991) who could demonstrate that there are a number of ambiguities surrounding the
nature of “pre-ceramic” deposits at Sesklo. Section drawings, detailed descriptions, plans
which are supposed to prove PPN deposits at Sesklo are not included in the reports and
456
all the ceramic fragments found in PPN deposits are interpreted as “intrusive.” Coarse-
looking pottery pieces are presented as evidence of “experimentation with clay.”
Moreover, it is never really clear how big the excavation area was, how deep the PPN
deposits reached, what distinguished them from the EN layers. Carbon dates are also far
from indicating how long PPN stage may have lasted at Sesklo (Bloedow 1991). It is not
the aim of this study to discuss this problematic issue; however, it has to be noted here
that there are serious doubts about the existence of PPN deposits at Sesklo.
The “PPN” stratum at Sesklo comprises a very ashy deposit with number of elliptical
pits dug into the virgin soil which are interpreted as pit-dwellings.80 These pits contained
various finds including bone implements, lithic –obsidian and flint tools, ceramic
figurines, shells and other stone objects. The lithic industy is based on blade production
and obsidian from Sesklo has been mined at Melos. The osteological and botanical
analyses conducted on the material from these deposits concluded that the earliest
inhabitants were agro-pastoralists who brought with them domesticated sheep/goat,
cattle and pig as well as wheat (Triticum dicoccum), barley (Hordeum vulgare) and pea
(Pisum sativum) (Wijnen 1982: 11).
Very little is known about the EN settlement at Sesklo. EN levels at Sesklo, around 2 m
thick, are distinguished into three stages: ENI, ENII and ENIII. Unfortunately, no houses
have been excavated to a full extent from these levels. However evidence of dwellings is
clearly indicated by burnt mud debris with impressions of wood and reeds. Remains
from ENIII confirmed rectilinear houses made out of “mud-brick and pisé” (Wijnen
1982: 11; Kotsakis 1996: 49).
EN deposits are followed by Middle Neolithic layers which also show three
developmental stages. The architecture, observed on 22 MN houses, shows free-standing
houses with massive stone foundations, mud-brick superstructure and rectangular plans
(Andreou et al. 2001: 263). It is suggested that the roofs were thatched and the
settlement is surrounded by an enclosure wall (Theocharis 1973: Fig. 178). The latest
MN settlement ends with a fire. According to Kotsakis (1996: 52), the organization of
settlement and buildings, contrasted at area A and B, might be an early manifestation of
social complexity. Substantial remains from Dimini and Rachmani phases of LN with
Megaron-like buildings are overlying these burnt deposits. It is noted that habitation of
the mound continued until the end of the 2nd millennium BCE (Kotsakis 1996: 49-54). 80 For a discussion on the nature of “pit-dwellings” from EN Greece see Perlés 2001: 184-185.
457
A number of carbon dates are available from the site. According to the sum of nine dates
from the so-called “PPN” and ENI levels, basal Sesklo is dated to 6460-6220 cal. BCE
while Sesklo EN II-III is dated to 6210-5920 cal. BCE (Thissen 2005: Fig. 4).
Ceramics
The pottery from EN levels at Sesklo has been analyzed by Wijnen. Our summary below
draws on her detailed report published in 1982.
The pottery from ENI deposits
(Strata A-C) contains mica or small
particles of mica schist along with
sand. Surface colors are variable
with incompletely oxidized colors
that range between red, black and
buff. Inoxidized cores are likewise
very common. Light surface colors
increase from stratum C to A which
is explained by the increasing
ability of the potters to control the
firing conditions. Mottling is
common. The surfaces are
smoothed and occasionally
burnished on both sides. Highly
burnished examples are rare. Wijnen (1982: 27) indicates that post-depositional factors
may have worn out the burnished surfaces.
The vessels are constructed with coiling and pinching techniques. Wijnen distinguished
“coarse” and “medium” wares, the former decreasing from stratum A to C. Medium
wares constitute 95% of the assemblage. Carinated or necked vessels are not produced at
this stage. Forms are comprised of small-middle sized hole-mouth jars, jars with ‘s’-
shaped profiles, bowls with convex profiles and bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles. Wijnen
(1982: 25) distinguished six rim types. These are enumerated as blunt, flattened, tapered
symmetrically, tapered inside, tapered outside and rolled over. Functional additions are
rare. Single or double pierced or non-pierced lugs appear on pots. Bases are flat,
rounded, disc or ring bases (Fig. 6.51).
Figure 6.51: Early Neolithic I pottery from Sesklo (after Wijnen 1982: Fig. 11)
458
Wijnen (1982: 33) concludes that there is a tendency from stratum A to C towards
producing unrestricted forms, thinner walls, better oxidized wares, ring bases and
everted rims. An overall evaluation clearly points out a slow gradual change in the
pottery production.
With ENII-III the first examples of painted wares are observed at Sesklo, although these
appear in extremely rare quantities. ENII pottery is basically fine, mineral tempered
medium wares with light buff-red or dark red colors and burnished surfaces. Application
of a red slip, initially streaky then of better quality, is first attested in the ENII period.
Pierced lugs decrease in number. Decoration is confined to painting in red or white
color. Red colored paint is applied on white or buff colored surface while white or light
red colored paint is applied on red surfaces. The motifs comprise linear compositions,
horizontal bands on rim and solid filled triangles. Hole-mouth jars, bowls with convex
profiles, bowls with flaring profiles, higher ring bases are characteristic shapes of ENII.
ENIII witnesses the disappearance of painted wares and appearance of plastic
decoration. Paint appears again only at the end of the ENIII period prior to the real
“Sesklo Culture”. ENIII pottery is composed of well-fired, thin walled, fine-medium
wares, mineral tempered. Surfaces are smoothed and burnished. Medium wares which
comprise more than 90% of the assemblage are very frequently red slipped and
burnished. Knobs and lugs are observed on fine and medium wares. At the end of the
sequence, painted decoration, red on white or buff slip, appears again. The motifs are
well arranged compositions of bands and triangles. Collared jars and shallow bowls
(dishes) appear for the first time in this phase. Hole-mouth jars, bowls with flaring walls,
bowls with convex profiles and globular jars continue to be produced. Flat and ring
bases are also common (Wijnen 1982: 37). Although present in West Thessalian EN
sites, impressed wares are rarely encountered at EN Sesklo (Reingruber 2008: 253).
Middle Neolithic period at Sesklo is characterized by the so-called “monochrome A1
ware” which is a very fine, RSBW. The styles of painted decoration are implemented by
Theocharis to distinguish various stages during the MN period which shows a gradual
development in itself (Alram-Stern 1996: 126). The first phase is characterized by the
so-called “solid style” which shows checkerboard motifs and zig-zags in red color on
buff-cream surface. In the following stage, the so-called “flame pattern” is considered
characteristic. Finally comes the linear style white-on-red pottery decorated with
chevrons, bands, zig-zags and other linear compositions. Red on brown or orange
459
surface is also observed during this stage (Gallis 1996: 120). Bowls with pedestal bases,
deep beakers with vertical strap handles (“mugs”), tulip-shaped vases, bowls with squat
shapes, large plates, globular jars with necks are popular during the MN.
2. Argissa
Argissa (or Gremnos Magula) is located 4.5 km West of modern city Larissa on the
northern bank of river Peneios whose river bed destroyed some parts of the mound. The
mound measured 300 x 100 m with eight m of deposits as Milojčić excavated the site in
1956-1958. Milojčić identified an aceramic settlement, actually post-holes and pits, on
the humic virgin soil which stretches itself at least 80 m. These deposits have been
exposed at an area which measures ca. 8.5 x 6 m (Milojčić, Boessneck and Hopf 1962).
Milojčić (1959: 51) also found Middle-Late Paleolithic stone tools and animal bones in
the around the site along the banks of Peneios riverbed.
According to Milojčić, no doubt should exist over the aceramic settlement, although
most of the pits contained clay objects and pottery. Bloedow (1991) and Reingruber
(2005; 2008) have separately re-analyzed the prehistoric settlement at Argissa and
concluded that the presence of an aceramic settlement cannot be confirmed on the
mound. We will not go into the details of this discussion, but as already mentioned
above, this study considers that the current data fails to demonstrate that an Aceramic
stage existed in Thessaly.
The earliest settlement deposits at Argissa were left by a community who possessed both
domesticated cereals and animals. Emmer (Triticum dicoccum) and einkorn (Triticum
monococcum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) are the main cultivated cereals. Animal
husbandry is based on sheep-goat and to a lesser extent pigs and cattle. Hunting and
freshwater shell gathering were also practiced by the community. Grinding instruments,
blade-based lithic industry, arrowheads, conical sling missiles, bone polishers, various
stone and bone instruments are found among the material cultural remains of the so-
called “Aceramic” stage (now termed EN I) (see Milojčić et al. 1962).
The remains from Milojčić’s EN strata are not free from controversy either. Milojčić
interpreted a different colored area on plan 28b as a post-wall house (‘Hütte’) which
measured 4 x 5 m and included a hearth. Reingruber (2008: 149-150), however, doubts
that this area once belonged to a building. She suggests that this area might have been
used as an open-air activity area in the light of the excavation documentation which did
460
not mention remains of post-holes or burnt mud remains. As a result, with the current
knowledge on the architectural remains from the site, not a single house plan can be
attributed to the EN period safely. The earliest structural remains at Argissa are attested
in the Middle Neolithic levels.
On the mound, Proto-Sesklo, Sesklo, Dimini I-II and EBA-MBA deposits were also
located. EBA fortification system is massive and cuts the Neolithic layers. The mound
was settled until the early Roman period (Milojčić 1956).
Nine radiocarbon dates are available from EN levels at Argissa which are re-interpreted
by Reingruber as belonging to EN I, II, III and Middle Neolithic phases (see Reingruber
and Thissen 2005: 298; Reingruber 2008: Tab. 3.4). Unfortunately, the dates have large
standard deviations and were analyzed prior to the advance of AMS technique. The
oldest of these (UCLA-1657A: 8130±100 BP) provides a very early value between
7350-6850 cal BCE (at 1 σ). Thissen’s sum of four reliable carbon dates from Argissa
PPN-EN presented a range from 6640-6250 cal. BCE (Thissen 2005: Fig. 4) whereas
Reingruber’s new chronological sequence assigns ENI phases at the site to 6400/6300-
6200 cal. BCE (Reingruber 2008: Tab. 3.1).
Ceramics
Preliminary reports of Milojčić include
information on the pottery but extensive
analysis of the pottery took place recently
which has been published by Reingruber
who documented 944 EN sherds, albeit not
always from secure contexts, from the old
excavations (Reingruber 2008: 163-164).
Our summary will base on information
provided by both archaeologists.
There are two different horizons which
yielded EN pottery at Argissa. These are
the so-called “Proto-Sesklo” and “Early
Ceramic” stages. Beneath the layers with
EN pottery, Milojčić finds the
“keramiklosen Schichten” (Milojčić 1956: Figure 6.52: Ceramics from the ‘aceramic’ Argissa (after Milojčić 1962: Taf. 11)
461
165). The aceramic levels from Argissa, the pits, also yielded pottery which is
interpreted as intrusive by Milojčić. They are illustrated in his 1962 report which is
solely devoted to the aceramic layers (Fig. 6.52). Bowls with convex profiles and
restricted forms are observed in the pottery from this level. One jar fragment with ledge
rim is interesting as it is similar to some Achilleion forms (see below). Reingruber
(2008: 213) rightly emphasizes that the pottery from the earliest deposits at Argissa
display well-developed features and forms which cannot be interpreted as
“experimental” or “primitive”. It is clear that the first inhabitants of Argissa were not
only an agro-pastoral community but also had the skills and know-how to produce
pottery.
The recent analysis of Argissa pottery distinguishes the following ware groups at the site
(Reingruber 2008: 191-203):
1. Red and brown ware (Planum 31-23a) 2. ‘Blacktopped’ ware (Planum 27c-24) 3. Black ware (Planum 28-24) 4. White or light colored group (Plaunm 28b-26) 5. Painted wares (with four sub-variants) (28-25c) 6. Other
Reingruber (2008: 155) indicates that Milojčić’s ‘Aceramic’ and ‘EN’ deposits (Plana
31-28b) form one chronological stage which can now be called “ENI” (Fig: 6.53).
Pottery from this initial phase is moderately fired, burnished and frequently red slipped
(or rather washed). The red-brown wares are mineral tempered, quartz and sand. The
forms are simple and predominantly restricted. Thinned and thickened simple rims are
common. Bases are either plano-convex (concave) or ring bases. Pierced lugs and small
oval knobs are occasionally observed on vessels. Decoration is virtually absent.
According to Wijnen (1982: 60), these properties are matching well with the middle
phase of ENI pottery from Sesklo. At Argissa, they appear, however, suddenly, without
any preceding stages.
Figure 6.53: The ceramic development at Argissa (after Reingruber 2008: Tab. 3.3)
462
ENII at Argissa (Milojčić’s ‘Proto-Sesklo’) is characterized by shell tempered pottery
and the first appearance of black burnished and black-topped wares. Painted pottery
likewise makes it first appearance in this phase. In this developmental phase, plain
burnished wares, especially the RSBW and black burnished wares are considered typical.
Bowls with convex profiles, hole-mouth jars, shallow bowls with flaring sides, jars with
everted short necks, ring bases, vertically pierced knobs or knobs are frequently
observed. Paint is made on the outer surface of the vessels and confined to thick linear or
curvilinear motifs which make up big triangles or zig-zags. Towards the end of the phase
jars with thick ledge rims and high pedestal bases become popular (Reingruber 2008:
214).
Next phase (ENIII) as defined by Reingruber encompasses the appearance of impressed
pottery at the site. Majority of the wares and vessel forms from the previous phase
continue to be produced (Reingruber 2008: Taf. 25-26). Impressions are executed with a
pointed tool. Thick ledge rims and high pedestal bases as well as simple bowls and short
necked jars constitute the majority of the assemblage.
The MN pottery at the site is characterized by fine, well-fired, thin-walled, and mica
tempered burnished wares with cream, light brown, orange and red surface colors. Red-
on-cream, impressed pottery, high pedestal bases and sharply everted rims paint can be
described as typical for this phase. It is seen that paint and impressed decoration is
combined on a number of sherds. Impressions are made with finger pinching,
instruments or perhaps even shells. Plastic decoration is also present in the MN
assemblage (Reingruber 2008: 215). Despite the changes in the decoration and progress
in the ceramic technology the form repertoire remains almost identical to the previous
phases.
The ceramic sequence at Argissa contains both continuity and innovation. Sharp cultural
breaks are not observed. Especially the transition between late EN and early MN is very
gradual (Reingruber 2008: 215).
3. Achilleion
Achilleion is a settlement mound, 200 x 260 m, located 800 m above sea level on a
natural hill southeast of Karditsa Plain and modern settlement Farsala. A stream, one of
the tributiries of River Aichil flows in the immediate vicinity of the site. Mound contains
463
solely Early and Middle Neolithic deposits. Only 11 recent burials on top of the mound
cut the Neolithic debris.
The site was initially subject to trial excavations by Theocharis in 1961 who upon his
excavation that did not reveal pottery suggested that a PPN settlement exist on the
mound. Systematic excavations were carried out on the mound by Marija Gimbutas of
UCLA in 1973-1974 which disproved Theocharis’s suggestion. Gimbutas’s excavations
contain four excavation grids (each 5 x 5 m) and eight test pits on the slope of the
mound. Gimbutas, Shimabuku and Winn published a monograph of the excavation
results in 1989 which will serve us here as the main source of information.
Four main occupational levels have been identified on the mound. These are labeled
from latest to earliest as follows: IV a-b, III a-b, II a-b and I a-b. Ia is the stratum directly
above the virgin soil which is represented by grayish-brown soil mixed with charcoal,
one layer of plaster and at some places with almost black soil with much burnt organic
material in it. IVa is interpreted as the longest occupation on the mound which has three
phases stretching over three centuries (Gimbutas et al. 1989: 28).
According to the conventional and current Thessalian chronology the levels on the
mound correspond to following stages (Gimbutas et al. 1989: Table 3.4):
Levels III-IV Sesklo Culture MN
Level Ib-II Proto-Sesklo EN III
Level Ia Early Pottery EN I-II
A good number of carbon determinations on charcoal samples are available from
Achilleion which provides a good framework for regional and comparative chronology.
A recent sum analysis showed that the EN levels (I and II) can be dated between 6340-
6020 cal. BCE while an overlap of datings of Level I and II is recognized (see Thissen
2005: Fig. 4). Level III-IV dates approximately to 6030-5730 cal. BCE. One sample
from the latest occupation layer (6590±80 BP), IVb, provides 5620-5480 cal. BCE at one
sigma.
Phase Ia is composed of pits which are variously interpreted as “pit houses” or “storage
pits”. Phase Ib contains the remains of a rectangular house with stone foundations and
mud-slab walls. The floor is plastered and housed pottery and lithic finds. The
464
architectural technique seems to have changed in the following Level IIa. With this level
rectilinear post-wall houses without stone foundations are constructed at the site, which
are frequently accompanied by pits, fire installations, horseshoe-shaped hearths and open
activity areas. Phase IIIa, characterized by refuse burning areas, is devoid of any house
plans, which is interpreted as a shift of settlement location on the mound during this
stage. With level IIIb, architectural remains belonging to post-houses and activity areas
with domed ovens and platforms appear again. Mat impressions are frequently found on
the floor of the houses too. Level IV marks another change in the architectural
techniques and plans, although the orientation remains the same. Stone foundations are
again used and the houses are larger with multiple rooms. A large pit for firing pottery
and a domed oven have also been located in the settlement in Phase IVa. Finally, phase
IVb is distinguished from the earlier phases with its long and massive stone foundations
that form rectilinear plans whose orientation is completely different from the Level III
houses (Winn and Shimabuku 1989a).
According to Gimbutas (1989: 213-214), Phases III and IV contained buildings or spaces
used exclusively for ritual purposes which she named as “cult areas” or “shrines”. This
designation relies on the concentration of find groups such as figurines, fine painted
pottery and footed vessels which are interpreted as cult equipments. More than 200
fragments of anthropomorphic figurines have been found in the deposits of Achilleion in
a variety of find contexts ranging from refuse pits to clay platforms and near hearths or
ovens. A general assessment of the find contexts of figurines, frequently together with
tools and implements related to food preparation and other daily activities, challenge the
view suggested by Gimbutas, although there is certainly certain symbolic meanings
attached to the painted pottery and figurines which may well be beyond profane
purposes.
Apart from clay figurines, phallic symbols, footed vessels (cult vases), the so-called “ear
studs” (or ear plugs), beads, spools, loom-weights, bone awls-needles, polished axes,
stamps and stone bowls constitute the other find groups recovered at Achilleion.
Lithic industry in all levels contains both local (mainly red jasper) and extra-local
material (Melos obsidian). Except for obsidian, manufacture and knapping took place on
the site. Direct and indirect percussion techniques have been attested. Blades, micro-
blades, sickle inserts, scrapers but also retouched flakes have been produced. Obsidian
465
was especially used for blades which have been produced with control of the size and the
shape by skilled knappers (Elster 1989).
Achilleion was inhabited by a food-producing community who cultivated einkorn
(Triticum monococcum), emmer (Triticum dicoccum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare)
which are continued to be cultivated until the end of the occupation on the mound.
Animal husbandry is meat-oriented and dominated by sheep-goat while cattle, pig, dog
and wild fauna have also been recorded in all levels without abrupt changes in the
subsistence strategies (Renfrew 1989; Bökönyi 1989).
Ceramics
The summary below is based on Winn and Shimabuku’s (1989b) detailed report.
Large amounts of pottery, around
100.000 sherds, were uncovered in
two excavation seasons at the site
which are distinguished in five ware
groups. Among them the so-called
“Standard Ware” constitutes the big
majority of the pottery assemblage.
These are grit tempered fine wares
which may be slipped and burnished.
Other ware types are called
“moderately fine”, “fine sandy”,
“kaolin” and “coarse”. Pottery from
Achilleion is typically burnished
(72%) from the very beginning
onwards while various slips have also played an important role for the appearance of the
pottery. Tan (7%), white (4%), thick buff (9%) and red (5%) slips were identified at the
site. White slip is especially used on pottery which is made out of white clay identified
as containing kaolin. Light brown colored slip is mainly observed in Levels I and II
which is burnished. In Levels III-IV, a thick buff colored slip is observed which is not
burnished. Red (haematite) and white (kaolin) slips associated with fine and painted
wares are typical for the latest Levels III and IV. Earliest painted pottery (white triangles
on reddish background) appears in Phase Ib.
Figure 6.54: Typology of Achilleion ceramics (after Winn and Shimabuku 1989: Fig. 5.8).
466
One of the important aspects of pottery change from Level I to IV has been observed in
surface color. Level I pottery is typically pinkish, cream or gray colored indicating the
low technological level in comparison to upper levels. Level II, proto-Sesklo period, is
dominated by dark brown and reddish brown colors. Level III and IV are increasingly
dominated by red-buff and red-orange colors. Almost all of the pottery from Level IV
has red color achieved by the red slip applied to the surface which was also burnished.
RSBW corresponds to fine vessels that have wall thicknesses ranging from 3-10 mm. At
Achilleion, 10% of pottery had walls that are less than 3.5 mm thick while 77% of the
pottery had a thickness from 4-10 mm. Really thin vessels (<0.35 mm) are observed
from Level IIb onwards and increase until the IVa.
Unrestricted shapes dominate the
Achilleion pottery assemblage from Level
Ia to IVb. Analysis of around 5500
rimsherds revealed the following major
vessel type distribution: 60% open, 26%
closed, 5% high neck, 3% low neck, 3% S-
shape and 3% plate. The typical vessel
forms from the site comprise hole-mouth
jars with globular bodies, jars with short
necks, jars with long everted necks, bowls
with convex profiles, bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles, bowls with flaring sides, bowls
with straight sides, carinated bowls and beakers. Necks of the jars range from 4-9 cm
while short necked jars measure less than 4 cm in length. Jars with short necks appear in
Level IIa and continue until IVb (Figs. 6.54, 6.55).
Jars with high necks appear in Level IIIa and increasingly continue until Level IVb.
Vessels with ‘s’-shaped profiles show a similar pattern to long-necked jars. They appear
in Level III and increasingly continue until the end of the settlement. Closed and open
simple forms with globular and convex bodies are found from Level Ia to IVb indicating
the continuation and gradual development of pottery production. Simple, flattened, ledge
and everted rims are common. Base typology is dominated by ring bases. Low ring bases
are clearly dominating the Level I. They decrease in number until Level IVb. Concave
and high ring bases appear only Levels III and IV. Small knobs, lugs and pierced lugs
are found on the vessels. Handles appear later in the sequence with IIb.
Figure 6.55: Seriation diagram showing the frequencies of major vessel shapes at Achilleion (after Winn and Shimabuku 1989: Fig. 5.11)
467
Decoration on the pottery shows four techniques: Paint, incision, impression and plastic
application. Plastic decoration is confined to abstract shapes and single bands and
observed from IIb to IVa. Incisions are observed as simple grooves, lines and slashes.
Finger-nail impressions have been documented on some sherds from Level IVa and IVb.
Impressed sherds have untreated porous surfaces with large non-plastic inclusions.
Painted pottery from the site is more abundant than the other decorated pottery. Paint is
confined to red, brown and white colors. 93% of the paint is applied on RSBW. Thin or
medium-thick vessels with moderately fine non-plastic inclusions are preferred for
painted vessels. Typically vessels with ‘s’-shaped profiles and vessels with flat bases
receive paint. Rarely, vertical strap handles and spouts are also painted. Red-on-white
(60%), brown-on-white (10%), red-on-red (6%), white-on-red (17%) and white-on-dark
(7%) variants are found at the site. Thin walled ‘s’-shaped shaped vessels are always
painted in red.
The analysis of the painted sherds revealed different motifs related to certain levels thus
indicating a clear development in the applied styles. Level I contained large triangles
while level II is characterized by lines and chevrons. With Level III, one observes broad
bands, chevrons, zig-zags, net and saw tooth (“flame” at Sesklo) motifs. Level IV
displays step motifs, wavy lines and curvilinear designs.
Level IIIb/IVa also contained jar necks with anthropomorphic representations, depicting
human faces which are applied on the jar necks (called “masks” by Gimbutas 1989: Fig.
7: 53-54).
468
4. Comparing Thessalian Ceramic Sequence with Central-West Anatolia
A comparison of the ceramic assemblages from Sesklo, Argissa and Achilleion reveals
that the earliest levels at Sesklo and Argissa pre-date basal Achilleion. As mentioned
already, Wijnen suggests that the earliest pottery from Argissa corresponds to middle
ENI pottery from Sesklo. Although the carbon dates seemingly contradict with this
statement, at this point, I consider Wijnen’s statement more reliable in the face of
archaeological data from both sites.
Achilleion Ib is most probably contemporary with Sesklo ENII stage where painted
pottery with large triangles are observed at both sites. Achilleion II probably corresponds
to Sesklo ENIII. It is indicated that at the end of ENIII at Sesklo, true Sesklo style
painted pottery appears at the site, which is the defining characteristic of MN period in
Thessaly. MN Sesklo corresponds to MN Argissa and Achilleion III-IV periods.
There are four important developmental phases from EN to MN in Thessaly which
deserve highlighting here:
1. The earliest pottery is mineral tempered smoothed-burnished medium wares
which are without a distinctive surface color due to the open-firing technique.
Wash-like red slip is encountered at Argissa ENI. The forms are simple and
mainly restricted. Hole-mouth jars and bowls with convex profiles are typical.
Figure 6.56: Schematic table showing the developmental phases of Thessalian Neolithic pottery (after Demoule and Perlès 1993: Fig. 8)
469
2. In the following stage there is a clear tendency in producing reddish pottery. Red
slip is increasingly encountered. First painting (red-on-buff) with large triangles
appears. Low necks appear on jars. Ring bases are higher. Dishes are produced.
3. Fine, thin-walled and lustrously burnished wares are typical. RSBW are
dominating. Motifs painted on vessels change. “Flame” or “tooth saw” motif is
typical. Jars with funnel necks, pedestal bases, tulip-shaped vases, and vessels
with ‘s’-shaped profiles appear.
4. Impressed sherds are observed at the end of the EN sequence. West Thessalian
sites contain more impressed wares than the Eastern ones.
5. MN is marked by red-on-cream painted pottery and fine red slipped wares.
White-on-red painted pottery is observed at the end of the MN sequence at
Sesklo.
Some of these developmental stages are matched at Central-West Anatolia whereas
others are peculiar to Thessaly. Interestingly, the development observed in EN pottery of
Thessaly is matched to a large extent on the other side of the Aegean.
In terms of wares, mineral tempered medium wares with inoxidized cores and burnished
surfaces which show a variety of colors is found at all Anatolian sites around 6400-6100
cal. BCE. Moreover, the simple forms, typically the hole-mouth forms, are the most
definitive vessel shapes of this stage both in Anatolia and Thessaly. We have already
mentioned the Çatalhöyük VIII-VI dark burnished wares, basal Menteşe, basal
Bademağacı and Ulucak Vb-f as settlements where this early pottery horizon can be
followed. What is more surprising is that one can follow similar trends in Southeast
Anatolia and Northern Syria which coincides with the famous DFBW-Horizon (Tsuneki
and Miyake 1996: 114; Balossi 2004a: 139; Özdoğan 2000: 168). Although there are
various technological and morphological divergences between Syrian-Southeast
Anatolian and Central Anatolian dark burnished wares, communities share a basic
approach to the pottery production (Balossi-Restelli 2006: 254). In my opinion, earliest
Neolithic from Thessaly may be corresponding partly to the dark burnished ware trend,
although none of the reports from the region mention that possibility. This possibility
makes especially good sense in the light of maritime model created by Perlès (2005).
470
Dark burnished medium wares with mineral temper and hole-mouth forms are very well
attested in early Ulucak layers (especially Vb-f) which are dated to 6400-6200 cal. BCE.
Obviously, Ulucak VI pre-dates Sesklo and Argissa, however, by and large, Ulucak Vb-f
is contemporary with those sites. In Central-West Anatolia, Ulucak V and Yeşilova III
Early are the only sites where pre-RSBW horizon can be observed. This stage is marked
by the absence of some major traits in the ceramic assemblages in both regions such as
carinated bowls, necked jars, painted and impressed decoration and pedestal bases. All of
these traits belong to the developed stage with RSBW which are thin-walled and well-
burnished.
In Thessaly, an increase in the RSBW is observed with ENIII stage at Sesklo, Argissa
and with Level III at Achilleion. This coincides with Ulucak IV Early where RSBW
begins to dominate the assemblage. At Ulucak, Level IV, is simply characterized by fine
red slipped wares but there are also cream burnished wares and impressed wares in the
assemblage. It is interesting to notice that cream slipped wares may actually be matched
at Achilleion I-II where light brown slip is observed on 7% of pottery. Appearance of
short necked jars in Level II is likewise matched at both sites.
One important aspect which needs to be raised about the common ceramic traits from
both regions is the absence of coarse wares. The low numbers of coarse, porous wares
with middle-big sized mineral non-plastic inclusions that may be suitable for cooking
make us re-consider the function of pottery for the early farming communities in this
region. Various scholars have already expressed doubts on the close relation between
food preparation and early pottery production in Greece, stating early pottery might not
have been predominantly utilized for cooking purposes, at least not on direct fire (Vitelli
1989; Perlés 2001: 216-217). These suggestions seem to have been largely confirmed by
the evidence from Ulucak. As argued in Chapter V, Ulucak ceramics were mainly used
for serving and storage purposes. Cooking might have been easily done without the use
of pots on direct fire. Indeed this is the case at Çatalhöyük where cooking was done
using several ways such as roasting, grilling and indirect boiling (Hodder 2006: 53-54;
for details see Atalay and Hastorf 2005). Hence, absence of cooking pots around 6th
millennium cal. BCE in both regions is fundamentally important as it presents us with an
important clue about the food preparation techniques and function of ceramic
production. I do not think that it is a coincidence that early farming communities of
İzmir and Thessaly had similar attitudes towards ceramic use. Fine thin walled vessels,
471
red or cream color and brightness of pottery from both regions resulting from time
consuming diligent production stages speak for a well-advanced know-how of ceramic
technology that gives special care to visual appearance along with functionality.
Jars with funnel necks appear only after 6000 cal. BCE in entire Anatolia. Same goes
true for Thessaly where jars with long necks appear in ENIII at Sesklo and Achilleion
III. Such jars are produced at the end of the EN and they continue into MN in Thessaly
and EC in West Anatolia. Parallel to this development, ever larger jars are constructed
by the potters who developed skills and know-how to cope with the constraints caused
by producing vessels with large volumes. Cereals and other agricultural product are
stored increasingly in such vessels which foreshadow the pithoi.
Bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles are typical at both regions. At Ulucak, they appear
already in Vb and continue until the end of the Level IV. In Level IV, oval variants of
the bowls with ‘s’-shaped profiles are observed. At Achilleion I, the ‘s’-shaped profiles
were absent whereas at Sesklo they appear from the ENI onwards. It is true that the ‘s’-
shaped profiles first appear undeveloped in Anatolia and the ‘s’ shape becomes
especially pronounced with the later stages. Finally, they would be produced as carinated
bowls, as observed at Hacılar. This stage however is not observed at Ulucak IV, where
although there is a certain tendency to produce carinated shapes is observed, true
carinated bowls are never encountered in the assemblage.
Figure 6.57: Various impressed pottery from Argissa (after Reingruber 2008: Taf. 29), Kosak Shamali (Balossi 2006: Fig. 11.4), Mezraa Teleilat (after Özdoğan 2007b: Fig. 56), Halula (Balossi-Restelli 2006: Fig. 11.5) and Tell Sabi Abyad (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Pl. 48 and 52).
472
At Central-West Anatolian sites, impressed pottery is commonly observed. At Ulucak,
they first appear with Level Va (6100-6000 cal. BCE) in conjunction with the increase of
cream and red slipped burnished wares. Similar to Central-West Anatolia, impressed
pottery is absent in the basal deposits of EN sequence in Thessaly, appearing during the
ENIII (Reingruber 2008: 214). Impressed pottery makes up around 4-5% of pottery
assemblage in Level IV. Impressed pottery is nearly absent at Sesklo but has been
attested at Achilleion IV and Argissa. Impressed wares from Achilleion (see Winn and
Shimabuku 1989: Figs. 5.67, 5.68, 5.69) are similar to the Ulucak ones morphologically.
Impressed pieces from Argissa, however, are less similar to Ulucak examples in terms of
their execution and organization (see Reingruber 2008: Taf. 25, 26, 29). Especially the
impressions made with a comb-like instrument which leaves continuous lines of dots on
the surface of pottery (so-called “combed-impressed ware”) is unknown at Ulucak.
Interestingly, impressions made with comb-like instrument which produces dotted-lines
such as at Argissa MN are attested in Northern Syria, Amuq valley and Urfa (Balossi-
Restelli 2006; Fig. 6.57). At these sites, impressions can be combined with red paint, a
technique also attested at Argissa MN. Large and deep triangles (see Reingruber 2008:
Fototafel 4 and Abb. 3) made with an implement is likewise absent at Ulucak. Such
impressions seem to belong to rather middle of the 6th millennium BCE which is not
represented on mound Ulucak.
Reingruber indicates that impressed pottery is encountered only after 6000 BCE at
Argissa which corresponds to the final EN and MN periods in this region (Reingruber
2008: Tab. 3.3). In northern Syria, Tell Sabi Abyad constitutes one of the best
documented 7-6th millennium BCE sites that provides a well-established sequence for
the pre-Halaf and Halaf periods. Impressed pottery from the site stems between Levels
8-6 (pre-Halaf levels) and disappears with Level 5 (transitional) that cover a period from
6100 to 5950 cal. BCE (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Table 3.4.1). Similar appearance of
Thessalian impressed wares to the Syro-Cilician impressed pottery is worth noting
because of possible contemporaneity and their resemblances may be reflecting cultural-
social contacts and influence. Although Ulucak Late IV is contemporary with Tell Sabi
Abyad 8-6 as well as with Argissa MN comb-impressed sherds are not encountered at
the site. Ulucak impressed wares are confined to simple impressions made by finger
nails or an instrument. Production of continuous impressions (by shell, comb or
roulettes) was not undertaken by Central-West Anatolian communities.
473
Jar necks with human faces from Achilleion III-IV may be compared to
anthropomorphic vessels from Ulucak IVb. Although morphologically and technically
there are certain divergences, the basic concept remains comparable.
There are a good number of traits which are not matched at both regions. In the
following table, I have tried to enumerate the most important features observed on EN
pottery from both regions that can be considered typical for the respective regions but
fail to appear (or in very low quantities) in the other region.
THESALLY CENTRAL-WEST ANATOLIA
Contrasting Ceramic
Traits
1. Red-on-buff and white-on-red painted pottery (ENIII-MN)
2. high ring bases and pedestal bases (EN-MN)
3. Tulip-shaped vases (MN) 4. Ledge rims (EN-MN) 5. Squat bowls (MN) 6. Vertical strap handles on
beakers (MN) 7. Comb-impressed sherds
1. No painted pottery 2. Oval forms (EC) 3. Thick flattened rims (LN-EC) 4. Vertical tubular lugs (LN-EC) 5. Flat and Disc bases (LN-EC) 6. Chaff temper in pottery (EC) 7. Small vertical handles on rim (EC) 8. Simple impressions
In my opinion, these differences manifest the local development of pottery traditions in
both regions. This statement should not be interpreted as an indication of isolation of
these regions. On the contrary, both are actively involved in the creation, evolution and
reproduction of the ceramic styles and trends during the Aegean Neolithic. Moreover,
they are definitely in contact at least by means of obsidian procurement at Melos (be it
direct or indirect). One important observation is the high resemblance during the very
early stages of EN with Central-West Anatolian ceramic assemblages. Through time,
both regions develop their own local morphological traits. This is especially felt during
the MN in Thessaly and EC in West Turkey.
Nevertheless, some of the differences listed above, are also related to the chronological
factors. For example, the squat bowls from MN sites in Thessaly is not matched in
Central-West Anatolia but are actually found at Hacılar I which dates later than Ulucak
IVa. Similarly, tulip shaped vases and pedestal bases are likewise a trait of Hacılar I and
Kuruçay 7. Pedestal bases were also found at Ege Gübre. In other words, some typical
traits of Thessalian Middle Neolithic pottery can be matched in West Anatolia where EC
sites such as Hacılar and Kuruçay encompass developed stages of this period which are
not attested at Ulucak IV. Ulucak IV as well as other Central-West Anatolian sites are
474
abandoned prior to the foundation of Hacılar I. Thus, we cannot be sure whether these
traits are genuinely missing in Central-West Anatolia or this is an impression created by
chronological factors. The presence of tulip-shaped vases, squat bowls and pedestal
bases at EC Lake District sites point out that West Anatolian and Thessallian
communities continued to adapt newly emerging ceramic trends simultaneously and that
they were participating in the regional exchange of goods and people which facilitated
that the greater Aegean functioned as a major Kulturkreis. A similar model has been
recently proposed by Reingruber (2008: 613) who suggests that East and West Aegean
should be considered as one single cultural entity as many material cultural elements
occur simultaneously on both sides of the Aegean. Although I subscribe to this view to a
great extent, there are more divergences on the both sides of the Aegean than Reingruber
demonstrates. Moreover, the new carbon dates from Ulucak VIa, which securely date to
the first half of the 7th millennium cal. BCE, undermine Reingruber’s thesis to a certain
extent who envisages that West Anatolia and Thessaly went through parallel
developments during the initialization of Neolithic in both regions which began around
6500/6400 cal. BCE. Our impression, in the light of new research in West Anatolia, is
that West Anatolia experienced the arrival of farming communities several centuries
before Thessaly.
It is intriguing to note that Lake District and Thessalian sites share more similarities than
Central-West Anatolian sites with Thessaly. This trend, clearly reflected in the presence
of red-on-buff painted pottery at Thessaly and other ceramic and material cultural traits,
brings to mind that there might have been closer contacts between these two regions
which might have by-passed Central-West Anatolia and perhaps operated through
established maritime routes instead of land routes. In other words, it seems plausible that
Southwest farming communities interacted with the West Aegean groups directly via
maritime routes instead of via river valleys or through the filter of Central-West
Anatolian societies.
Historical record shows that the land routes may not have always functioned as the most
optimal choice for transportation of goods, animals and people, as long as the maritime
routes which, most probably followed the coastline, were safer (Braudel 1972: 103).
Braudel (1972: 105) emphasizes this notion when describing the 16th century
Mediterranean maritime traffic as follows: “The importance of the shore was such that
the coastal route was scarcely different from a river.” The ships and boats made
475
frequent stops at coastal towns; be it due to a strong North wind or acquiring of food and
water or delivering a cargo. He (1972: 107) terms this kind of sailing “slow-motion
shipping” which may in fact act as a model for earlier periods, too. It is known, for
instance, that the Uluburun ship followed the coastline and islands on her voyage from
Levant to Aegean during the 13th century BCE (Pulak 2005: Abb. 52). Uluburun
shipwreck is also a good manifestation of how dangerous the waters may be in this
region and that pre-modern voyagers had difficult time coping with the unpredictable
nature of weather conditions.
Even though it is problematic to impose the archaeological and historical record from
later periods to the Neolithic, there is no reason to dismiss the possibility that maritime
routes were already established during the prehistoric periods, going back at least to the
Late Paleolithic period. Maritime travelling on a regular basis for purposes of mobility,
raw material procurement, rituals or exchange activities is ethnographically well-attested
phenomena among the non-industrialized societies with technology that does not involve
metal; the Kula trade practiced by some Polynesian groups described by Malinowski
(1922) being one of the best known. There is archaeological evidence for seafaring of
early Homo sapiens as soon as they began colonizing the world, reaching as far as
Australia around 60,000 BP which cannot have been successful if maritime transport
was not implemented.
Evidence for maritime sailing
of the Aegean and
Mediterranean is more than
persuading (for details see
Cherry 1990 and Broodbank
1999; 2006). Cyprus and
Melos, for instance, were
already visited during the Late
Paleolithic, and Cyprus,
distanced around 65 km from
the nearest mainland, is
colonized around 8500 cal.
BCE by Anatolian-Levantine
communities (Broodbank Figure 6.58: Possible seafaring nurseries of the Aegean (after Broodbank 1999: Figure 1.4)
476
2006: 209). Melos obsidian is continuously mined by a variety of groups who should
have traveled to the island on a regular basis. Evidence of fishing and mollusk collecting
are other evidence for the involvement of the Neolithic communities with the resources
housed by the sea. Finally, the slow-moving colonization, more accurately, foundation of
permanent settlements by farmer-herders on the insular and littoral landscapes in the
entire Mediterranean responsible for the co-appearance of domestic sheep and pottery is
another convincing indication of seafaring (Camps 1986). We have already mentioned
that Islands Sakız (Chios) and Gökçeada (Imbros) were already inhabited around 7th - 6th
millennium cal. BCE, although many Aegean islands probably remained unsettled but
were visited for various reasons until the Aegean LN (see Broodbank 1999: Tab. 1.1).
From the available archaeological evidence it becomes clear that the Neolithic Aegean
communities were well-aware of the rotation and seasonality of sea currents and winds,
location of islands, their potential for raw materials or hunting-grazing, moreover they
were capable of manufacturing sea-going crafts which were fulfilling the aero-dynamic
capabilities of sailing of distances up to 60-100 km. Therefore, it does not sound far-
fetched to propose that coastal Aegean on both sides has been subject to intense
activities undertaken by Neolithic communities ranging from subsistence-based activities
to raw material procurement and regional exchange activities. Broodbank (1999) terms
coastal regions attractive for maritime traffic and island colonization as “seafaring
nurseries” where travel by sea is decidedly easier than over land (Fig. 6.58). Moreover,
there is a possibility that maritime-routes were preferred over land-routes because
traveling by sea is quicker, easier and more efficient, even, safer (as long as piracy is not
practiced).
The viewpoint which considers the Aegean Sea (actually entire Mediterranean) as a
bridge, instead of a barrier, should be endorsed in the light of current archaeological
evidence. Aegean early farming societies must have been composed of diverse origins,
traditions and practices which remained in close contact with each other, thus
maintaining and encouraging analogous ways of living and expression. Archaeological
evidence, especially ceramic evidence, is very much in favor of such an explanation that
involves both homogeneity and diversity. In my opinion, the peer-polity interaction
model developed by Renfrew (1996) is a suitable tool for visualizing the type of
interactions experienced by the Aegean Neolithic communities dispersed in multiple
regions.
477
According to Perlès (2005: 280) and Runnels (1995: 727), the origins of this hard-to-
explain simultaneous homogeneity and diversity should be sought in the Levantine
maritime colonization of mainland Greece which by-passed inland Anatolia in its initial
stages but developed nonetheless contacts with it. Our impression is also in favor
intensive maritime contacts in the Aegean and mobility engendered by slow-motion
seafaring rather than preference of land routes.
478
O. Final Remarks
The aim of Chapter VI was to provide the reader with an inter-regional perspective with
regards to the ceramic sequence we established for Ulucak. The comparing and
contrasting of pottery wares and forms in the discussions enabled us to recognize the
local characteristics of Ulucak pottery, to indicate its relationship to other contemporary
sites in Anatolia and Southeast Europe and construct a comparative relative
chronological sequence for the regions discussed.
The earliest pottery from the Ulucak phases (Vc-f), although not treated in detail in this
study, show firm similarities to Çatalhöyük VII-IV and basal Menteşe ceramics with
regards to their fabric and forms. These ceramics are marked by their fine-medium
fabrics, mineral tempers, dark colors, burnished surfaces, and finally, with their
restricted form variability, predominated by hole-mouth forms. Several archaeologists
noticed the similar features of EN pottery from various parts of Turkey. For instance,
Seeher (1987: 48) compares Glimmer Ware from Demircihöyük with Mersin XXXII-
XXVII and Çatalhöyük VIII ceramics. Özdoğan associates the mineral dark burnished
wares of the Fikirtepe Culture with dark mineral wares of Çatalhöyük (Özdoğan 2000:
168). Recently, Özdöl (2008b) re-assessed the ceramic material from Çatalhöyük,
Suberde and Erbaba and defined the horizon with dark burnished wares and hole-mouth
forms as the “Middle Tradition,” which despite its regional character can easily be
compared to assemblages of Mersin, Tell el-Kerkh and Amuq in the East and Menteşe in
the North.
The issue over the dark burnished wares in Anatolia is significant because the apparent
homogeneity of technology, surface treatment and forms imply common origins for the
early farming communities. Interestingly, Bademağacı ENI wares are distinguished from
this dark burnished group with their light-colored and burnished-smoothed surfaces (see
Duru 2007: Figs. 62-63). However, dark-colored examples are also present in the
assemblage and Bademağacı ENI 9-5 may temporally correspond to basal Menteşe,
Çatalhöyük VII-IV and Ulucak Vb-f (see also Özdöl 2008b on relative chronology). It
should also be noted that Ulucak Vf pottery is composed not only of brown burnished
wares but also CSBW and RSBW. Preliminary analysis of Ulucak Vf pottery indicates
that brown burnished wares constitute 36% of the assemblage, while RSBW makes up
25% and CSBW 33% of the ware groups. As a result, the presence of light-colored
pottery at basal Bademağacı and Ulucak Vb-f might be a parallel characteristic in both
479
regions where alongside dark-colored burnished wares light-colored and slipped pottery
seem to have been produced. The relationship of the light-colored coarse straw-tempered
pottery at Çatalhöyük XII-X to the medium-fine cream burnished pottery at Bademağacı
and Ulucak remains unclear. Apart from the common surface color there seems to be no
correlation between the earliest Çatalhöyük pottery and the earliest Lake District pottery
(Duru 2007: 356). Moreover, the carbon dates indicate that Çatalhöyük XII-X is older
than basal Bademağacı and Ulucak Vb-f.
Interestingly, the earliest pottery at Mersin-Yumuktepe, so-called “Sandy Ware,” has
thick walls, light-colored slipped and burnished surfaces. Together with Sandy Ware,
DFBW appears in these early deposits which are dated to 7000-6500 cal BCE (Balossi
2004b: 130). With Level XXIX-XXVIII light-colored sandy ware disappears and
DFBW, with several sub-types, constitutes almost the entire assemblage in the following
phases until the appearance of Halaf-related fabrics (Balossi 2004b: 115; Tab. 4). This
sequence reminds us of the pottery development at Çatalhöyük East, where coarse light-
colored wares are replaced by medium-fine dark mineral wares (Özdöl 2008b). Such
parallel development in Southeast Anatolia and the Konya Plain is highly interesting and
most probably not coincidental. It is clear that Central and Southeast Anatolian groups
were in regular contact as obsidian exchange, and presumably trade of other
components, continued at least into the sixth millennium BCE. It is more intriguing to
explain the presence of dark burnished wares in Central-West Anatolia. Several major
river valleys, especially Büyük Menderes and Porsuk-Sakarya Basin, in West and North
Anatolia must have provided the land routes from the Central Plateau to these regions.
Nevertheless, gaps in the archaeological record impede reconstruction of the ways in
which Central Anatolian communities in general interacted with West Anatolia.
Detailed comparisons of mineral-tempered, dark-colored wares in all of these regions
should be the next step in our aim to reconstruct the initial stages of the ceramic
sequence in Anatolia and towards understanding the origins of Neolithic communities in
West Anatolia. In order to assess whether there were close ties among the early farming
groups across Anatolia in the first half of the 7th millennium BCE, detailed and multi-
faceted examinations of dark burnished wares along with other material culture from
these sites seems to be an appropriate research objective for the near future. Except at
Sesklo and Argissa, this early stage is lacking in the entire Southeast Europe. ENI and II
480
at Sesklo and Argissa seem to roughly correspond to Ulucak Vb-f and therefore to the
latest phases of dark burnished ware horizon in the Eastern Mediterranean.
In the following stage, Ulucak ceramics can be compared with numerous sites from
Central Anatolia, West Anatolia, Northwest Anatolia, and Southeast Europe. At Ulucak,
the end of the 7th millennium BCE is marked by a transition to mud-brick architecture,
an increase in the quantity of pottery, an increase of red-slipped wares, and finally, the
appearance of impressed pottery. Brown burnished wares barely exist. We have
compared this stage with Hacılar VI, Bademağacı ENII, basal Can Hasan (7-4), Ilıpınar
X-VIII, and Hoca Çeşme IV. Similar to Central-West Anatolia, and also in Thessaly,
RSBW are produced typically more towards the end of the EN sequence (Reingruber
2008). In Bulgaria, the earliest Neolithic settlements appear around 6100/6000 cal. BCE
and likewise show red-slipped pottery and impressed wares (Krauß in press).
The steady increase of red-slipped wares is observed not only at Ulucak from Level V to
IV, but also in the entire West Anatolia. Red-slipped wares become the only major fabric
type of the region with the start of the 6th millennium BCE. In this period, red-slipped
wares have a very widespread distribution from Southwest Asia to Southeast Europe,
although their quantity and quality fluctuate from one region to the other. Central-West
Anatolia and the Lake District stand out as the most important regions where this fabric
was produced and developed in high quality and quantity (Çilingiroğlu, Ç. 2004). Even
the earliest layers at Ulucak contain fine, red-slipped burnished pottery that indicates that
in the mid 7th millennium BCE fine, glossy red-slipped wares have already been
produced and preferred by the Central-West Anatolian communities. Considering that
production of red-slipped wares is a long-term process in the region that continues more
than half a millennium in an ever increasing pace and amount may suggest that the
origins of red-slipped ware may lie in this region.
Another issue that was briefly mentioned in Chapter VI, is the appearance of black
burnished wares during the EC period. Özdöl (2008b) states that these appear in
Çatalhöyük’s late levels (IV-III) as a developed fine version of dark burnished wares.
Black burnished wares are very characteristic of the Early-Middle Chalcolithic period in
Central Anatolia, such as at Tepecik-Çiftlik 2 (Bıçakçı et al. 2007: Fig. 31) and Köşk
Höyük II-IV (Öztan 2007: Fig. 25). Jet-black burnished wares are also mentioned as one
of the typical fabrics at Hoca Çeşme IV-III (Karul and Bertram 2005: 121). Finally, the
late stage of EN in Southeast Europe is likewise characterized by the steady increase of
481
black burnished wares. This follows the disappearance of red-slipped wares, which
corresponded to the Karanovo II-III Transition (Krauß in press). Black burnished wares
are entirely missing at Ulucak and in Central-West Anatolia, as can be observed from the
available archaeological evidence. This creates a contrast to the neighboring regions,
where the transition from red to black burnished pottery can be traced. It is possible that
their absence is related to the end of mound settlements in the region around 5700-5600
cal. BCE.
In this chapter we have tried to show not only the common features among various
regions but also the contrasting traditions. Our analysis indicates that each separate
region contained pottery features, be it wares or forms that are peculiar to that region.
Despite general similarities in pottery assemblages, local input was recognized in each
region. Local traditions are especially apparent in the developed phases of EN in
Southeast Europe where particularization and regionalization is heavily felt. Similarly,
with the beginning of EC in Anatolia, especially with the development of painted wares,
local characteristics emerge and common elements among various regions become less
pronounced. Nevertheless, in terms of architectural techniques, settlement layout,
general ceramic characteristics, and other material culture elements pottery assemblages
remain largely comparable in the entire Anatolia, Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean.
The issue of impressed wares has already been mentioned and discussed above several
times but it is important to recognize that impressed wares have a widespread
distribution. At Ulucak, they appear first in Level Va and continue to be produced until
the end of the settlement. Similarly, at Lake District sites they do not appear in the
earliest phases but usually appear in EC levels in very few numbers. Impressed wares
similar to the Ulucak impressed wares have been found at Yarımburgaz 5 and Ilıpınar
VIII (see Özdoğan 2007b; Thissen 2001). In Thessaly, they appear at the end of the 7th
millennium BCE (ENIII). We have mentioned that in Bulgaria they are observed at
Karanovo I-II sites, as well as in the Struma Basin and Northeast Bulgaria.
Impressions at Ulucak are either applied on medium-coarse unburnished gray wares or
they are applied on red-slipped and burnished surfaces. Impressions are unconnected to
each other, usually distributed irregularly over the outer surface and are made with
fingertips, finger nails or with a pointed instrument. Impressed wares from the Lake
District, Northwest Anatolia, Thessaly, and Bulgaria are almost identical to each other,
which according to my view speaks for a common origin. Interestingly, impressed wares
482
from Northern Syria (such as Tell el-Kerkh) are also very reminiscent of Aegean
impressed wares (Tsuneki and Miyake 1996), while some comb-impressed sherds from
Argissa (Reingruber 2008: Taf. 29-30) are comparable to impressed pottery from Tell
Sabi Abyad, Halula and Mezraa Teleilat (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Pls. 48-52; Özdoğan
2007b: Figs. 56-57). It seems likely that there is a connection between the simultaneous
appearance of impressed wares in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, and that
there are different trends in different times which develop simultaneously and may not
disperse in the same direction. However, it remains unclear what kind of mechanisms
triggered the sudden appearance of impressed wares in the Aegean.
The time period immediately following 6000 cal. BCE entails many changes in the
pottery assemblage at Ulucak. Red-slipped ware makes up almost the entire assemblage
which is now chaff tempered. Long-necked jars, large storage jars, anthropomorphic jars,
oval bases, double-knobs, and flat bases are typical features of the Ulucak IVb
assemblage. Analogous developments are observed at Central Anatolian, Lake District
and Northwest Anatolian sites. However, Central-West Anatolian sites are distinguished
from these regions with regards to the issue of painted wares. Painted wares are virtually
absent in Central-West Anatolia. None of the excavations carried out in the region
provided material that would change this statement. As a whole, Central-West Anatolia
is clearly distinguished from other regions both to the East and West. We have stated
that painted wares might not have been adapted in the regions as a result of cultural
resistance. Another possibility is that Central-West Anatolian settlements were
abandoned before the massive production of painted wares. The issue is open to
discussion.
With regards to their stylistic features, few painted sherds found at Ulucak, both red-on-
cream and cream-on-red variants, can be easily compared to Hacılar VI and Nea
Nikomedeia painted pottery. The paint is applied with a thick brush and the patterns are
composed of simple linear compositions. Curvilinear or spiral-like compositions, typical
of developed EN assemblages in Southeast Europe, are not found in Central-West
Anatolia. Present evidence indicates that Central-West Anatolian groups were
technologically capable of producing painted wares and, to a certain extent, they did
produce painted vessels (if these were not imported). Nevertheless, they preferred plain
burnished wares for a long time. At a time when potters in neighboring regions were
483
increasingly manufacturing painted pottery, this trend did not find an echo in Central-
West Anatolia.
The quasi-simultaneous abandonment of Central-West Anatolian sites around 5700/5600
cal. BCE prevents us from following the cultural sequence beyond this date. A similar
process seems to have happened in the Lake District, although Hacılar I reaches towards
the middle of the 6th millennium BCE. However, in Central Anatolia, Çatalhöyük West,
Can Hasan, Köşk Höyük, and Tepecik-Çiftlik continue to be settled after 5700/5600 cal.
BCE. At these sites one can actually observe the complete EC period and the transition
from red-slipped wares to black burnished wares. Similarly, at Hoca Çeşme, Aşağı Pınar
and Karanovo, as well as at Sesklo, the transitional phases are present. The total absence
of such sites in Central-West Anatolia, at least in already investigated mounds, is very
interesting and an issue worth further researching; perhaps through intensive surveys
which aim to locate non-höyük sites. In any case, it is evident that long-term social
stability and continuity of 7-6th millennia sites in Central-West Anatolia comes to an
abrupt end before the mid 6th millennium BCE.
484
Concluding Remarks and Future Prospects
The aim of this study was to present the pottery analysis results from Levels IVa-k and
Level Va-b at Ulucak, which are comprised of superimposed building phases that
approximately cover a time period of 6300/6200-5700/5600 cal. BCE. Selection of
secure depositional contexts contributed greatly to the reliability of the analysis and
enabled precise quantitative examination. In contrast, small sample sizes from several
building phases (especially IVg-k) stand out as one of the shortcomings of the statistical
analysis. Data obtained from the ceramic analysis was used to serve two distinct research
objectives: assessing cultural-historical features with an intra-site, intra-regional and
inter-regional perspective, and defining technological and organizational aspects of the
pottery production at the site.
The analysis of Ulucak IV-V pottery suggested that the ceramic development at the site
can be divided into four main developmental stages that contain the following
characteristics:
1. Level Vb: Characterized by BBW, CSBW and RSBW. Hole-mouth forms, open
forms with ‘s’-shaped profiles, round disc bases, and vertical tubular lugs.
2. Level Va: Characterized by a marked increase in the RSBW and appearance of
impressed wares. Hole-mouth forms, jars with short necks, open forms with ‘s’-
shaped profiles, tubular lugs, small handles, and disc bases.
485
3. Early IV (IVg-k): Characterized by fine CSBW and RSBW and increase in the
organic temper. Jars with short necks, bowls with ‘s’-shaped and convex profiles,
thick flattened rims.
4. Late IV (IVa-f): Characterized by fine RSBW and impressed wares. Chaff
temper and fine-porous surfaces. Storage jars, anthropomorphic vessels, long-
necked jars, ellipsoid forms, oval bases, bead-rims, flattened rims, small vertical
handles on rims, horizontal lugs below rims, and flat bases.
It has to be highlighted that the above presented stages are not conclusive and in no way
do they imply abrupt changes in the pottery production, fabrics or forms. I have divided
these stages in order to make the long and complicated sequence at Ulucak IV-V more
comprehensible for the readers. One of the most significant results of this study is
actually the uninterrupted continuity in the ceramic production. Nevertheless, this
continuity is not created by a static or conservative attitude; on the contrary, novelties
regarding both fabrics and forms are detected along the sequence. It seems appropriate to
me to state that the level of continuity and novelties in the Ulucak IV-V ceramic
assemblages are a consequence of long-term cultural-social stability in the area. Even
though many settlements at Ulucak end with a fire, and probably some are abandoned by
the community following the disaster, the newcomers to the mound have continued
producing pottery in the tradition of the previous occupants. There is also no evidence of
abrupt change in the other material cultural elements from Level Vb to IVb. In this
sense, evidence obtained from ceramic data concurs with that of the rest of the material
culture, indicating locally sustained, social-cultural stability until 5700/5600 cal. BCE in
Central-West Anatolia.
The analysis of Ulucak IV-V pottery is significant as it contains the first detailed study
of material from a Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic settlement in Central-West
Anatolia. As mentioned already, archaeological research in the region focusing on
Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods was very restricted until the late 1990’s. Ulucak
is indeed the first site in Central-West Anatolia which was subject to large-scale and
long-term excavations with a problem-oriented approach. Good preservation of the early
levels contributed enormously to the long-term understanding of the history of the
settlement on the mound. Since the late 1990’s, excavations are being conducted at
various other sites in the region and continuously provide us with new data on the nature
of the 7th through 6th millennia.
486
Ulucak is distinguished from other sites in Central-West Anatolia by its exceptionally
long stratigraphical sequence which according to carbon dates spans around 800-1000
years. The continuous nature of the settlement on the mound for a millennium elevates
Ulucak to a position of a referential site for its own region, such as Çatalhöyük for
Central Anatolia and Yumuktepe for littoral Southeast Anatolia. In other words, one can
observe the material cultural sequence and development from the very beginning of the
7th millennium BCE onwards, until the abandonment of the mound around 5700-5600
cal. BCE. Ceramic data from Ulucak presents us with a unique case and can be
considered representative of its immediate vicinity, allowing us to have a firmly
constructed sequence for Central-West Anatolia, specifically the İzmir Region.
Integration of data from other sites in the area allows us to assess the level and nature of
regional diversity, as all the sites investigated in Central-West Anatolia contain unique
components which to a certain extent contrast starkly with the archaeological evidence at
Ulucak. Despite high levels of homogeneity observed in the material culture across the
region architectural techniques, for instance, may differ from site to site. Such examples
need to be carefully evaluated with regards to the variability in Central-West Anatolia. It
seems that, at least between littoral and inland sites, there are certain unmatching
elements which may even indicate divergent origins. The type of architecture at Ege
Gübre, with its round plans (Sağlamtimur 2007: Fig. 20), seems totally alien to the
region and is one of the most eye-catching cultural components highlighting the intra-
regional diversity. The analysis of ceramics and other data from these sites will provide a
high-precision picture building upon, and possibly modifying, the sequence we tried to
establish for Central-West Anatolia.
The second major aim of this study is to provide information on the technological,
organizational and functional properties of Ulucak IV-V pottery. Observations regarding
the technological aspects of Ulucak ceramics have been conducted in order to gain
information on the manufacturing process, the function of Ulucak pottery as well as the
level of specialization involved in the production of clay vessels. Determining
technological, organizational and functional aspects of ceramic production is an essential
part of ceramic analysis which, above all, allows us to infer clues on the social context of
pottery-related activities from mining of the clay to the circumstances of final deposition
(Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993: 31). Observations made on the analyzed material, such as
the fracture properties or surface treatment, allowed us to infer several insights into the
487
pottery production chain at the site. Several other find categories from Ulucak, such as
clay lumps and mortars with red ochre residues, provided us with clues to the stages of
pottery production and how it might have been organized. We have also discussed the
possibility of specialization of pottery production with reference to the theoretical
framework put forward by Costin (1991) and in light of the ceramic evidence and other
finds at Ulucak. Our discussion suggests that the pottery production at Ulucak was
household-based, dispersed, low scale, and part-time. Besides, manufacturing of Ulucak
pottery involved high know-how, medium-high labor investment and low production
rates.
Function of the ceramic containers at Ulucak was restricted to serving and storage in
both levels. We were able to show that the way in which agricultural products were
stored shifted through time. Storage of large amounts of agricultural products in large
ceramic containers took place only in Late IV. In Level V, storage of cereals was
confined to daub bins and mud boxes. The volumes of the ceramic vessels from this
level are not adequate for storing agricultural products. Gradual advances in the ceramic
technology opened new ways of employing ceramic vessels. Use of ceramic vessels and
clay lids for large amounts of food storage is an innovation observed in Level IV. We
can assert that the foundations for pithoi production were established in the beginning of
the 6th millennium BC.
True cooking pots and coarse wares are rarely found in the Ulucak assemblage. Ceramic
containers were not implemented to cook food on direct fire, although techniques like
indirect boiling cannot be dismissed as a possibility. Thin walls, red/cream color and
carefully burnished glossy surfaces may entail symbolic meanings and ceramic vessels
with these properties might have functioned as status objects during social events. Here
we are reminded of the works of other researchers who suggested that the early ceramics
might not have necessarily emerged in order to enhance cooking techniques but rather as
a result of social competition (Vitelli 1989; Perlès 1992: 144). The competitive feasting
model developed by Hayden might be a plausible explanation for the non-cooking-
related function of Neolithic ceramics in West Anatolia (Hayden 1995; Hayden 2003:
460). The data from Ulucak seems to support this view as the entire assemblage is
composed of fine-medium wares with non-porous, slipped and well-burnished surfaces
and without the necessary technological properties of cooking pots known from later
periods.
488
Another major aspect of this study was to compare and contrast the ceramic wares and
forms in Ulucak IV-V with neighboring regions and with Central Anatolia. In this study,
the inclusion of a detailed, exhaustive and comparative Chapter VI aims to integrate
Ulucak ceramics into the cultural-historical framework of 7-6th millennia BCE Anatolia
and Southeast Europe. As even the most basic data from Central-West Anatolia was
lacking until recently, this study simply tried to bridge this huge gap in research by
means of detailed ceramic comparisons and relative chronological discussions. Such a
comparison enabled us to understand the analogous and non-analogous features of
Ulucak ceramics with contemporary sites in Anatolia and Southeast Europe. This
understanding not only makes us recognize the relationships and possible origins of
Ulucak ceramic development but also presents us with the features of the local ceramic
tradition in the region, which is distinguished from the neighboring areas. As a result of
these comparisons, the local character of Central-West Anatolian Neolithic and Early
Chalcolithic pottery development was defined and its characteristics are listed for the
first time in a comprehensive way.
The comparison of Ulucak IV-V pottery with various regions also serves to construct
relative chronologies. Our comparisons indeed gave us the possibility to present a
relative chronological table for all the analyzed regions. We have tried to achieve this
goal by presenting the ceramic sequences in all the regions we included, presenting
absolute dates and comparing ceramic data. As a result, it is now possible to understand
the chronological position of Ulucak IV-V in relation to other Anatolian sites, Thessaly,
the Macedonian Plain, and various regions in Bulgaria. The main aim of this procedure
was to offer researchers a firm and reliable temporal framework of Ulucak IV-V
settlements with regards to other regions treated in this study.
Parallel to the topics related to relative chronology and ceramic comparisons, the study
tried to facilitate discussions on various key phenomena that should be researched in the
future. We have especially concentrated on the possibility of an organic relationship
between the brown burnished wares from Ulucak and the dark mineral wares at
Çatalhöyük and basal Menteşe, as well as its ties with the DFBW of Northern Syria and
Southeastern Anatolia. We proposed that brown burnished wares from Ulucak Vb-f may
indeed be related to the same ceramic horizon seen at these sites because such a
connection is implied not only by the analogous ceramic fabrics and vessel forms at
these sites but also by their carbon dates. The emerging picture suggests that around the
489
middle 7th millennium BCE pottery production was extremely uniform in terms of
production techniques, firing procedure and function in Southeast, Central and West
Anatolia.
Recognition of this uniformity is significant because it makes fundamental implications
as to the way in which the Anatolian landmass experienced the neolithization process.
The present evidence suggests that in Central Anatolia sedentary food-producing sites
already existed in mid-late 9th millennium BCE, corresponding to Southwest Asian
PPNB, (Esin and Harmankaya 2007; Baird 2007: 289) and Çatalhöyük’s pre-XII
deposits, dated to 7400-7000 cal. BCE are encompassing an aceramic horizon on the
mound (Hodder 2006: Fig. 18; 53). There is ample evidence that domesticated
cereals/pulses and animals in Central Anatolia have their origins in Southeast
Anatolia/Northern Syria (Asouti and Fairbairn 2002: 189; Martin, Russell and Carruthers
2002: 203); perhaps as a result of long-term exchange mechanisms active between
Central Anatolian and Syro-Levantine communities (Binder 2002). Nevertheless, many
characteristics of Central Anatolian Early Neolithic villages are peculiar to the region,
especially the settlement layouts and architectural techniques, and thus reflect high levels
of local input (Özdoğan 2002b; Matthews 2002). The data from Ulucak confirm that in
the first half of the 7th millennium BCE, the first sedentary food-producing settlements
appeared in West Anatolia. If we assume that the early farmers dispersed from East to
West, most probably following East-West oriented river valleys, sites earlier than
Ulucak should exist in Inner-West Anatolia.81 It should be noted that the indigenous
option, of local domestication and transition to farming by foragers, is not supported by
the current evidence from Central or Western Anatolia; although local foragers’ potential
contribution to the process cannot be categorically denied. The red-painted lime floors
from Ulucak VIa, dated to 7040-6660 cal. BCE, make a stronger case for the origin of
the early Ulucak society somewhere in Central Anatolia where such floors are well-
attested (Özbaşaran 2003). It is following the appearance of early farming communities
in West and Northwest Anatolia in the mid 7th millennium BCE that ceramic traditions in
Anatolia become very similar to each other. In my opinion, the homogeneous appearance
of ceramics from this stage (referenced in the literature with such names as brown
burnished ware, dark burnished ware and dark face burnished ware) implies a common
origin rather than independent development in pottery production that was related to the
initial dispersal of farming groups. The social dynamic behind this phenomenon deserves 81 Excavations at Keçiçayırı might just reveal such an early site (see Şahin 2008).
490
a detailed assessment and explanation which is, for obvious reasons, beyond the scope of
this study.
Another major topic in the study was the appearance of impressed wares and the
interpretation of their wide distribution in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean.
Data from Ulucak makes it clear that at this site the earliest impressed wares appear
around 6100/6000 cal. BCE. Prior to this date, impressed wares are absent in the ceramic
assemblage. We have noted that impressed wares appear more or less at the same time in
the entire Aegean. For instance, in Thessaly impressed pottery appears only at the end of
the EN period (Reingruber 2008). On the other hand, impressed pottery is already
present in Thrace in Karanovo I assemblages and continues to be produced into the
Karanovo II stage (Krauß in press). At the Macedonian Plain sites we have examined,
they are likewise present from the beginning of the earliest known Neolithic sites there
(Yiouni 1996b: 103; Garašanin 1998). It seems plausible to interpret this data as a clue to
the dispersal direction of the impressed pottery. It seems like the influence that triggered
the production of impressed wares first arrived in southern Aegean and then dispersed
towards the north around 6100/6000 cal. BCE.
In Chapter VI we already mentioned the analogies between impressed pottery observed
at northern Syrian and southeastern Anatolian sites in comparison to Ulucak impressed
wares. Around the time of the appearance of impressed wares between the littoral region
of the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean, it is highly likely that there was a strong
connection between these areas made possible by maritime traffic. The reason we are
proposing maritime contacts instead of trade via a land route to specifically explain the
appearance of impressed pottery relies on the fact that Central Anatolian and Lake
District sites are completely devoid of impressed pottery. The existence of a handful of
impressed sherds from Höyücek and Bademağacı (Duru and Umurtak 2005; Duru 1996:
Lev. 14) confirm only their occasional contact with coastal settlements but inland sites
remain by and large void of impressed pottery. Another hint, indicative of maritime
traffic at the archaeological level in Central-West Anatolia, is the alien nature of the
house plans at Ege Gübre. The circular structures and rectangular houses identified at the
site find no parallels in inland regions of Anatolia. On the contrary, the next best
architectural comparisons are from Cyprus and Halaf sites.
As already mentioned in Chapter VI, maritime traffic during the Neolithic period in the
Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean is archaeologically verified and there is good reason
491
to assume that movements of people, animals and goods were facilitated by established
maritime routes, along with land routes. The concept of “slow-motion shipping”
introduced by Braudel (1972: 105) is seemingly an appropriate approach to visualize
prehistoric seafaring. In this respect, our interpretation of the archaeological data from
Central-West Anatolia concurs well with the model developed by Perlès (2001; 2005),
who argued in favor of Levantine origins for the early farming groups on mainland
Greece that arrived via maritime activities. Moreover, her model implies long-term
mutual contacts, inclusive of movements in both directions, along the Mediterranean
coast and the Aegean. The route and mechanism of the impressed wares dispersal could
be further elucidated in the future if the southern Turkish coast were systematically
surveyed with a problem-oriented approach.
Another issue highlighted, regarding the impressed wares, was their uniformity in style
across large areas in the eastern Mediterranean and Aegean. Müller (1988) identified two
major impression types during the initial occurrence of this ware in the Aegean and
Adriatic: Impresso A and Impresso B. Impresso A refers to the initial impressed wares
which show unconnected free-standing impressions made in a variety of ways by finger-
tips, nails or a pointed instrument (Müller 1988: 106). In the following impression type,
comb-impressions and shell-impressions are typical and leave connected lines on the
vessel surface of straight or curved impressions. We have mentioned that at Ulucak and
in Central-West Anatolia only the first type (Impresso A) is observed. Indeed,
impressions of that type occur in a vast area from southeastern Anatolia to southern
Italy. Even at Ilıpınar VIII (Thissen 2001) and Yarımburgaz 5 (Özdoğan and Koyunlu
1986) unconnected types of impressions are observed. However, connected impressions
(made with shells, combs or another instruments) appear in southeastern Anatolia
(Özdoğan 2007a: Figs. 56-57), northern Syria (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Pls. 48-52),
Thessaly (Reingruber 2008: Taf. 29-30), and littoral Adriatic (Müller 1988: Fig. 6). At
Sabi Abyad, impressed pottery (both types) appears in levels that are dated between
6100-5900 cal. BCE (Nieuwenhuyse 2007: Tab. 3.4.1). Central-West Anatolia is not part
of this development, perhaps as a result of regional abandonment of settlements in the
beginning of 6th millennium BCE. Despite the termination of long-term stability in
Central-West Anatolia around 5700-5600 cal. BCE and the absence of an Impresso B
horizon, other areas which were involved in the distribution from the beginning continue
to contribute to the stylistic development of the impressed pottery. Due to this
continuation in distribution and development, by the second half of the 6th millennium
492
BC the reach of this ware becomes wider, extending as far as southern France and the
Iberian Peninsula, where it receives the name “Cardial Impresso” (Barnett 2000).
Finally, the absence of painted wares at Ulucak and in Central-West Anatolia was also
discussed in this research. Surprisingly, painted wares are absent at all Central-West
Anatolian sites, whereas with the beginning of the 6th millennium BCE entire Anatolian
sites as well as groups in Thessaly, Bulgaria and the Macedonian Plain produced painted
pottery in ever increasing amounts. The only region in Anatolia, besides Central-West
Anatolia, where painted pottery is not adapted on a large scale is in Northwest Anatolia
(specifically, the İznik Lake Basin). As already discussed in Chapter VI, there are two
possibilities as to why painted wares are absent in Central-West Anatolian LN-EC
settlements. Either the late deposits from Central-West Anatolia sites are corresponding
to a period when painted pottery was not abundantly produced in Anatolia or we are
confronted with a case where the societies of Central-West Anatolia culturally resisted
the adaption of painted wares. In any case, painted pottery horizon is not detected on the
mounds and this seems to be pointing out a meaningful pattern implying social
instability and cultural break in the area. The fact that all the excavated LN-EC sites in
Central-West Anatolia have been abandoned by the beginning of the 6th millennium BCE
prevents us from documenting the subsequent stages of the Early Chalcolithic in the
region. Therefore, the absence of, or non-adaption of, painted wares in the region
remains a puzzle to be solved by future research.
Current research may focus on these three highly interesting, yet problematic and not
well-understood horizons: the relationship of brown burnished wares to dark burnished
wares in Central Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean; the mechanisms behind the
appearance of impressed wares and their dispersal in the Aegean; and the reasons behind
the absence of painted wares in Central-West Anatolia. Another research goal could seek
out the reasons behind the abandonment of Central-West Anatolian sites around
5700/5600 cal. BCE and examine whether the region was inhabited or not in the second
half of the 6th millennium BCE. Finally, it is clear that the neolithization process of
West Anatolia can be re-written in light of the new data and analysis gained from the
recent archaeological research at Ulucak and other sites.
493
BIBLIOGRAPHY ABAY, E.
2003 “The Neolithic Figurines from Ulucak Höyük: Reconsideration of the Figurine Issue by Contextual Evidence” Neo-Lithics 2/03, 16-22.
2005 “Neolithic Settlement at Ulucak Höyük and its cultural relations with neighbour regions in Western Anatolia” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 75-84.
ABAY, E., H. SAĞLAMTİMUR and T. ÖZKAN
1999 “Ulucak Höyük Kazıları 1998” XXI. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 359-370.
AKDENİZ, E.
1997 “1995 Yılı Büyük Menderes Ovası ve çevresi yüzey araştırmaları” 14. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 233-254.
AKURGAL, E.
1978 Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey, İstanbul, Türk Tarih Kurumu.
ALLEN, H.D.
2003 “Response of past and present Mediterranean ecosystems to environmental change” Progress in Physical Geography 27(3), 359-377.
ALRAM-STERN, E.
1996 Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 1. Band, Das Neolithikum in Griechenland, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
van ANDEL, T.H. and J.C. SHACKLETON
1982 “Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic coastlines of Greece and the Aegean” Journal of Field Archaeology 9, 445-454.
ANDREOU, S., M. FOTIADIS and K. KOTSAKIS
2001 “The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece” in T. Cullen (Ed.), Aegean Prehistory, American Journal of Archaeology Supplement 1, Boston, 259-319.
ANGLE, M. and R. DOTTARELLI
1989 “Ethnoarchaeology at Uslu (Elazığ): A Preliminary Report on Contemporary Pottery Manufacture in Eastern Anatolia” VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 467-479.
ARNOLD, D.E.
1989 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
494
ARSEBÜK, G., F.C. HOWELL and M. ÖZBAŞARAN
1991 “Yarımburgaz 1989” XII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 17-42.
ARSEBÜK, G. and M. KORFMANN
1976 “Tülintepe Kazılarından Sapan Taneleri Toplu Buluntusu, 1972” Keban Projesi 1972 Çalışmaları, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 134-144.
van AS, A., L. JACOBS and M.-H. WIJNEN
2001 “Technological Study of the Chalcolithic pottery of Ilıpınar, Phase VB” in J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (Eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 155-168.
ASOUTI, E. and A. FAIRBAIRN
2002 “Subsistence economy in Central Anatolia during the Neolithic: the archaeobotanical evidence” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 181-192.
ATALAY, S. and C. HASTORF
2005 “Foodways at Çatalhöyük” in I. Hodder (Ed.), 109-124.
BAILEY, D.W.
2000 Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity, London/New York, Routledge.
BAIRD, D.
1996 “The Konya Plain Survey: Aims and Methods” in I. Hodder (Ed.), 41-46.
2002 “Early Holocene settlement in Central Anatolia: problems and prospects as seen from the Konya Plain” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 139-152.
2007 “Pınarbaşı: Orta Anadolu’da Epi-Paleolitik Konak Yerinden Yerleşik Köy Yaşamına” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 285-311.
BALKAN-ATLI, N.
1997 “Neolitik: bir araştırma sürecinin sorunları” Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 2, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 7-11.
2005 “Yontmataş Endüstrisi” in R. Duru and G. Umurtak (Eds.), Höyücek, 1989-1992 yılları arasında yapılan kazıların sonuçları, Ankara, TTK, 130-137.
BALKAN-ATLI, N. and D. BINDER
2007 “Kömürcü-Kaletepe Obsidyen İşliği” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 217-222.
495
BALKAN-ATLI, N., D. BINDER and E. FAYDALI
2001 “Kömürcü/Kaletepe Obsidyen Atölyesi 2000 yılı kazısı” XXIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 187-196.
BALKAN-ATLI, N., D. BINDER and M.C. CAUVIN
1999 “Obsidian: Sources, Workshops and Trade in Central Anatolia” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 133-146.
BALKAN-ATLI, N. and M.-C. CAUVIN
2007 “Das Schwarze Gold der Steinzeit” in Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (Ed.), Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien, die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss Verlag, 207-213.
BALLARD, R.D., F.T. HIEBERT, D.F. COLEMAN, C. WARD, J.S. SMITH, K. WILLIS, B. FOLEY, K. CROFF, C. MAJOR and F. TORRE
2001 “Deepwater Archaeology of the Black Sea: The 2000 Season at Sinop, Turkey” American Journal of Archaeology 104(4), 607-623.
BALOSSI, F.
2004a “The pottery production of levels XXVII-XXVI” in I. Caneva and V. Sevin (Eds.), Mersin-Yumuktepe: A Reappraisal, Lecce, Università di Lecce, 135- 142.
2004b “New Data for the Definition of the DFBW Horizon and Its Internal Developments, the earliest phase of the Amuq sequence revisited” Anatolica XXX, 109-149.
BALOSSI-RESTELLI, F.
2006 The Development of ‘Cultural Regions’ in the Neolithic of the Near East, BAR International Series 1482, Oxford, Archaopress.
BAR-YOSEF, O. and F. VALLA (Eds.)
1992 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Prehistory.
BARNETT, W.K.
2000 “Cardial pottery and the agricultural transition in Mediterranean Europe” in T.D. Price (Ed.), Europe’s First Farmers, 93-116.
BEAN, G.E.
1967 Aegean Turkey: an archaeological guide, London, Ernest Benn.
496
BENECKE, N. and L. NINOV
2002 “Zur Nahrungswirtschaft der neolithischen Bevölkerungen im Gebiet des heutigen Bulgariens nach archäozoologischen Befunden” in M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Beiträge zu Jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien,Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 555-574.
BENTUR A., A. RONEN and I. SOROKA
1991 “A Plastered Floor from the Neolithic Village Yiftahel (Israel)” Paléorient 17(2), 149-155.
BERNBECK, R. and S. POLLOCK
2001 “The Summer 2000 Season at Fıstıklı Höyük” Neo-Lithics 1/01, 1-3.
BIÇAKÇI E., Ç. ALTINBİLEK-ALGÜL, S. BALCI and M. GODON
2007 “Tepecik-Çiftlik” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 237-254.
BIÇAKÇI, E., F. AÇIKGÖZ, S. YILDIRIM-BALCI and Ç. ALTINBİLEK-ALGÜL
2008 “Tepecik-Çiftlik 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları” XXIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 483- 496.
BIEHL, P., B. ERDOĞU and E. ROSENSTOCK
2006 “West Mound” Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report, 122-133.
BINDER, D.
2000 “Mesolithic and Neolthic interaction in southern France and northern Italy: new data and current hypotheses” in T.D. Price (Ed.), Europe’s First Farmers,117- 143.
2002 “Stones making sense: what obsidian could tell about the origins of the Central Anatolian Neolithic” in F. Gerard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 79-85.
BIRMINGHAM, J.
1964 “Recent Archaeological Research in Turkey: Surface Finds from Various Sites” Anatolian Studies 14, 29-33.
BITTEL, K.
1943 “Prehistorik devirde Anadolu’da ölü gömme adetleri” II. Türk Tarih Kongresi, İstanbul, Kenan Matbaası, 170-181.
1969 “Bemerkungen über die prähistorische Ansiedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadıköy ( İstanbul)” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19/20, 1-19.
497
BLOEDOW, E.F.
1991 “The ‘Aceramic’ Neolithic phase in Greece reconsidered” Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 1-43.
BOESSNECK J. and A. von den DRIESCH
1979 Die Tierknochenfunde aus der Neolithischen Siedlung auf dem Fikirtepe bei Kadıköy am Marmarameer, München.
BOGAARD, A.
2004 Neolithic Farming in Central Europe: an archaeobotanical study of crop husbandry practices, London/New York, Routledge.
BOLLONGINO, R.
2006 Die Herkunft der Hausrinder in Europa: eine aDNA-Studie an neolithischen Knochenfunden, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 130, Bonn, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
BORDAZ, J.
1965 “Suberde Excavations, 1964” Anatolian Studies 15, 30-32.
1966 “Suberde” Anatolian Studies 16, 32-33.
1973 “Current Reseach in the Neolithic of South Central Anatolia: Suberde, Erbaba and Their Chronological Implications” American Journal of Archaeology 77(3), 282-288.
BORDAZ, J. and L.A. BORDAZ
1976 “Erbaba Excavations, 1974” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 22(2), 39-43.
1982 “Erbaba: The 1977 and 1978 Seasons in Perspective” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26(1), 85-92.
BOWMAN, S.
1990 Radiocarbon Dating, London, British Museum Press.
BÖKÖNYI, S.
1989 “Animal Remains” in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 315-325.
BÖKÖNYI, S. and L. BARTOSIEWICZ
1997 “Tierknochenfunde” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 385-424.
498
BRAIDWOOD, R.J. and L.S. BRAIDWOOD
1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I, The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A-J, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BRAUDEL, F.
1972 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the age of Philip II, London Fontana/Collins.
BROODBANK, C.
1999 “Colonization and configuration in the insular Neolithic of the Aegean” in P. Halstead (Ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece, Sheffield, Sheffield Universiry Press, 15-41.
2006 “The Origins and Early Development of Mediterranean Maritime Activity” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19(2), 199-230.
BRÜCKNER, H.
2003 “Delta Evolution and Culture-Aspects of Geoarchaeological Research in Miletos and Priene” in G.A. Wagner, E. Pernicka and H.-P. Uerpmann (Eds.), Troia and the Troad: scientific approaches, 121-142.
BUCK, C.E., C.D. LITTON and E.M. SCOTT
1994 “Making the most of radiocarbon dating: some statistical considerations” Antiquity 68, 252-263.
BUITENHUIS, H.
1995 “The Faunal Remains” in J. Roodenberg (Ed.), The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in Northwestern Anatolia, 1987-91, İstanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 151-156.
CAMPBELL, S.
2007 “Rethinking Halaf chronologies” Paléorient 33(1), 103-136.
CAMPS, G.
1986 “The young sheep and the sea: early navigation in the Mediterranean” Diogenes 34, 19-45.
CANEVA, I.
1999 “Early Farmers on the Cilician Coast: Yumuktepe in the Seventh Millennium BC” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 105-115.
499
CESSFORD, C.
2002 “Bayesian statistics and the dating of Çatalhöyük East” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 27-31.
2005 “Absolute Dating at Çatalhöyük” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 65-100.
CHERRY, J.F.
1990 “The first colonization of the Mediterranean Islands: A review of recent research” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3(2), 145-221.
CHOHADZHIEV, S.
2007 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures in the Struma River Basin, Veliko Tarnovo.
CHOHADZHIEV, S. and A. BAKAMSKA
1990 “Etude du site néolithique ancien de Kraïnitsi dans le département de Kustendil” Studia Praehistorica 10, 51-76.
CHILDE, V.G.
1956 “Anatolia and Thrace. Some Bronze Age Relations” Anatolian Studies VI, 45-48.
CLARK, J.E. and W.J. PARRY
1990 “Craft specialization and cultural complexity” Research in Economic Anthropology 12, 289-346.
COLLEDGE, S., J. CONOLLY and S. SHENNAN
2004 “Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean” Current Anthropology 45, 35-58.
CONOLLY, J.
1999 The Çatalhöyük Flint and Obsidian Industry, Technology and Typology in Context, BAR International Series 787, Oxford, Archaeopress.
COONEY, K., Ç. ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, C. LUKE and C. ROOSEVELT
prep. “Bozyer: A Prehistoric Multi-Component Site in Salihli-Manisa, Turkey” Oxford Journal of Archaeology. in preparation.
COSTIN, C.L.
1991 “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production” in M. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3, Tucson, University of Arizona, 1-56.
500
2000 “The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7.4, 377-403.
CRANE, H.
1988 “Traditional Pottery Making in the Sardis Region of Western Turkey” Muqarnas 5, 9-20.
CUTTING, M.
2005 “Architecture of Çatalhöyük” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, 151-169.
ÇAKIRLAR, C.
2007 Mollusk shells in Troia, Yenibademli, and Ulucak: An Archaeomalacological Approach to Environment and Economy in the Aegean. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Tübingen University.
2008 Ulucak 2008 archaeozoological report. Unpublished preliminary report. 1-11.
ÇAMBEL, H. and R.J. BRAIDWOOD (Eds.)
1980 “İstanbul ve Chicago Üniversiteleri Güneydoğu Anadolu Karma Projesi: 1963-1972 çalışmalarına toplu bakış” Prehistoric Research in Southeastern Anatolia, İstanbul, İstanbul University Publications 2589, 1-64.
ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, A. and Ç. ÇİLİNGİROĞLU
2007 “Ulucak” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 361-372.
ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, A. and E. ABAY
2005 “Ulucak Höyük Excavations: New Results” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.3, Special Issue on Ulucak, 5-21.
ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, A. and F. DEDEOĞLU
2006 “Ulucak Höyük Kazıları 2005 Yılı Çalışmaları” XXVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 137-146.
ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, A., Z. DERİN, E. ABAY, H. SAĞLAMTİMUR and İ. KAYAN
2004 Ulucak Höyük: Excavations Conducted between 1995-2002, Ancient Near Eastern Supplement 15, Louvain, Peeters.
ÇİLİNGİROĞLU, Ç.
2004 İlk Çanak Çömleğin Ortaya Çıkışında Kırmızı Astarlı Mallar Sorunu. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Istanbul, Istanbul University, Prehistory Department.
501
2005 “The Concept of ‘Neolithic Package’: Considering its Meaning and Applicability” Documenta Praehistorica XXXII, 1-13.
2009 “Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls: Contextual Evidence on the Function(s) of Neolithic Stamps from Ulucak, İzmir, Turkey” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22.1, 3-27.
DANIEL, G. and J. REHORK (Eds.)
1996 Enzyklopädie der Archäologie, Hamburg, Gustav Lübbe Verlag.
DEMOULE, J.-P. and C. PERLÈS
1993 “The Greek Neolithic: A New Review” Journal of World Prehistory 7(4), 355-416.
DERİN, Z.
2005 “The Neolithic Architecture of Ulucak Höyük” C. Lichter (Ed.), 85-94.
2006 “İzmir’den İki Yeni Prehistorik Yerleşim Yeri: Yassıtepe Höyüğü, Çakallar Tepesi Höyüğü” Ege Arkeoloji Dergisi 2006/1, 1-12.
2007 “Yeşilova Höyüğü” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 377-384.
2008 “İzmir-Yeşilova Höyüğü, İzmir’in En Eski Yerleşim Alanı” in B. Can and M. Işıklı (Eds.), Doğudan Yükselen Işık Arkeoloji Yazıları, İstanbul, Graphis, 217-230.
online http://yesilova.ege.edu.tr/kazi.htm
DERİN, Z., E. ABAY and T. ÖZKAN
2002 “Kemalpaşa-Ulucak Höyük Kazıları, 1999-2000” XXIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları, 341-350.
DERİN, Z. and A. BATMAZ
2004 “Bornova-Kemalpaşa (İzmir) Arkeolojik Envanteri 2003” TÜBA Kültür Envanteri Dergisi 2, 75-100.
DERİN, Z. and A. ÇİLİNGİROĞLU
2003 “Ulucak Höyük Kazısı 2001” XXIV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 185-194.
DERİN, Z., A. ÇİLİNGİROĞLU and M. TAŞLIALAN
2004 “Ulucak Höyük Kazısı, 2002” XXV. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 239-250.
502
DERİN, Z. and E. ÖNER
1996 “Ulucak Höyük Kazıları ve Paleo-Coğrafya Araştırmaları 1995” XVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 411-440.
DIAMOND, J.
1997 Guns, Germs and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies, London, Cape.
2002 “Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication” Nature 418, 700-707.
DİNÇ, R.
1997 “Kulaksızlar Mermer İdol Atölyesi ve Çevre Araştırmaları” XIV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 255-282.
DİNÇER, B. and L. SLIMAK
2007 “The Paleolithic of Turkish Thrace: Synthesis and Recent Results” TÜBA-AR X, 49-61.
DURU, G. and M. ÖZBAŞARAN
2005 “A non-domestic site in Central Anatolia” Anatolia Antiqua XIII, 15.-28.
DURU, R.
1989 “Were the Earliest Cultures at Hacılar Really Aceramic?” in K. Emre and B. Hrouda (Eds.), Anatolia and the Near East, Tahsin Özgüç’e Armağan, Ankara, 94-104.
1993 “Zwei neolithische Tontische aus Höyücek” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 129- 132.
1994 Kuruçay Höyük I. 1978-1988 Kazılarının Sonuçları, Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Çağ Yerleşmeleri, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu.
1995 “Höyücek kazıları 1991/1992” Belleten LIX, 447-490.
1996 “Bademağacı Höyüğü (Kızılkaya) kazıları.1993 Yılı çalışma raporu” Belleten LX, 783-800.
1997 “Bademağacı kazıları. 1995 ve 1996 yılları çalışma raporu” Belleten LXI, 709- 730.
1999 “The Neolithic of the Lake District” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 165-193.
2001 “Bademağacı Kazıları 1999 yılı çalışma raporu” Belleten LXIV, 583-598.
503
2002 “Some Observations on the Early Stages of Pottery Production in the Lake District (Ancient Pisidia)” in R. Aslan et. al (Eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, 403-419.
2003 “Bademağacı Kazıları 2000 ve 2001 yılları çalışma raporu” Belleten LXV, 549-594.
2007 “Göller Bölgesi Neolitiği” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 331-360.
DURU, R. and G. UMURTAK
2005 Höyücek, 1989-1992 yılları arasında yapılan kazıların sonuçları, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu.
2007 “Bademağacı Kazıları 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri (ANMED) 5, 6-11.
DÜRING, B.
2002 “Cultural Dynamics of the Central Anatolian Neolithic: the Early Ceramic Neolithic-Late Ceramic Neolithic transition” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 219-227.
2006 Constructing Communities: Clustered Neighborhood Settlements of the Central Anatolian Neolithic ca. 8500-5500 cal. BC. Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten.
EASTWOOD W.J., N. ROBERTS, H.F. LAMB and J.C. TIBBY
1999 “Holocene environmental change in southwest Turkey: palaeoecological record of lake and catchment-related changes” Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 671- 695.
EFE, T.
1991 “1988 yılında Kütahya, Bilecik ve Eskişehir illerinde Yapılan Yüzey Araştırmaları” VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 405-424.
1995 “İç Batı Anadolu’da İki Neolitik Yerleşme: Fındık Kayabaşı ve Akmakça” in H. Erkanal et.al. (Eds.), Memoriam İ. Metin Akyurt-Bahattin Devam Anı Kitabı, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 105-114.
1989-1990
“Three early sites in the vicinity of Eskişehir: Asmainler, Kanlıtaş, and Kes Kaya” Anatolica XVI, 31-60.
2005 “Neolithization in Inland Northwestern Anatolia” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 107-115.
EFSTRATIOU, N.
2005 “Tracing the story of the first farmers in Greece- a long and winding road” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 143-153.
504
EGGERT, M.K.H.
2005 Prähistorische Archäologie. Konzepte und Methoden. Tübingen, A. Francke.
ELENSKI, N.
2004 “Cultural contacts of North-Central Bulgaria with Thrace and the Marmara Area in the Early Neolithic” in V. Nikolov, K. Băčvarov and P. Kalchev (Eds.), Prehistoric Thrace, Sofia-Stara Zagora, 71-79.
2006 “Trench excavations at Dzhulyunitsa-Smardesh Early Neolithic site, Veliko Tarnovo Region” Archeologia (Sofia) XLVII, 96-117.
ELLIS, L.
1989 “Petrographic Analysis of the Ceramics” in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 165-170.
ELSTER, E.S.
1989 “The Chipped Stone Industry” in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 273-301.
ERDOĞU, B.
2000 “The problems of dating prehistoric axe factories and Neolithization in Turkish Thrace” Documenta Praehistorica XXVII, 155-166.
2003 “Visualizing Neolithic landscape: the early settled communities in Western Anatolia and Eastern Aegean Islands” European Journal of Archaeology 6(1), 7-23.
2005 “Visualizing Neolithic landscape: archaeological theory in the Aegean islands” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 95-105.
ERIKSEN, T.H.
2001 Small Places, Large Issues: an introduction to social and cultural anthropology, London, Pluto Press.
ERKANAL, H. and S. GÜNEL
1996 “1994 Liman Tepe Kazıları” XVII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 305-328.
ESİN, U.
1993 “Gelveri- Ein Beispiel für die kulturellen Beziehungen zwischen Zentralanatolien und Südosteuropa während des Chalcolithikums” Anatolica XIX, 47-56.
505
ESİN, U. and S. HARMANKAYA
1999 “Aşıklı” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 115-132.
2007 “Aşıklı Höyük” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 255-272.
ESLICK, C.
1988 “Hacılar to Karataş: Social Organization in Southwest Anatolia” Mediterranean Archaeology 1, 10-40.
1992 Elmalı-Karataş I. The Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods: Bağbaşı and Other Sites, Bryn Mawr college.
EVERSHED, R.P., S. PAYNE, A.G. SHERRATT, M.S. COPLEY, J. COOLIDGE, D. UREM-KOTSU, K. KOTSAKIS, M. ÖZDOĞAN, A.E. ÖZDOĞAN, O. NIEUWENHUYSE, P.M.M.G. AKKERMANS, D. BAILEY, R.-R. ANDEESCU, S. CAMPBELL, S. FARID, I. HODDER, N. YALMAN, M. ÖZBAŞARAN, E. BIÇAKÇI, Y. GARFINKEL, T. LEVY and M.M. BURTON
2008 “Earliest date for milk use in the Near East and Southeast Europe linked to cattle herding” Nature 10.1038/nature07180, 1-8.
EVREN, A. and C. İÇTEN
1997 “Efes Çukuriçi ve Arvalya (Gül Hanım) Höyükleri” VIII. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, Ankara, 111-133.
EVREN, A.
1999 “Efes Çukuriçi Höyüğü 1996 yılı kazısı” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 92, 22-31.
FAIRBAIRN, A., J. NEAR and D. MARTINOLI
2005 “Macrobotanical Investigation of the North, South and KOPAL Area Excavations at Çatalhöyük East” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 137-202.
FAIRBANKS, R.G.
1989 “A 17,000-year-old glacio-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep ocean circulation” Nature 342, 637- 642.
FRENCH, D.
1962 “Excavations at Can Hasan” Anatolian Studies XII, 27-40
1963 “Excavations at Can Hasan, Second Preliminary Report, 1962” Anatolian Studies XIII, 29-42.
506
1965 “Early Pottery Sites from Western Anatolia” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology V,15-24.
1966 “Excavations at Can Hasan, 1965, Fifth Preliminary Report” Anatolian Studies XVI, 113-124.
1967a “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia, I. part, The İznik Area” Anatolian Studies XVII, 49-100.
1967b “Excavations at Can Hasan, 1966, Sixth preliminary report” Anatolian Studies XVII, 165-178.
1968 “Excavations at Can Hasan, 1967, Seventh preliminary report” Anatolian Studies XVIII, 45-54.
1969 “Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Anatolia, II. part The Balıkesir and Akhisar/Manisa Areas” Anatolian Studies XIX, 41-98.
1986 “Anatolia: Bridge or Barrier” IX. Türk Tarih Kongresi, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara, 117-119.
1998 Can Hasan I: Stratigraphy and Structures, Ankara, British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 23.
2005 Can Hasan I: The Pottery, Ankara, British Institute at Ankara Monograph No. 32.
FUCHS, M., A. LANG and G.A. WAGNER
2004 “The history of Holocene soil erosion in the Phlious Basin, NE Peloponnese, Greece, based on optical dating” The Holocene 14(3), 334-345.
GALLIS, K.
1996a “Thessaly- The Northern Sporades” in G.A. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens, 120-123.
1996b “The Neolithic World” in G.A. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens, 23-38.
GARAŠANIN, M.,
1998 “Kulturströmungen im Neolithikum des südlichen Balkanraumes” Prähistorische Zeitschrift 73, 25-51.
GARAŠANIN, M., V. SANEV, D. SIMOSKA and B. KITANOSKI
1971 Les Civilisations Préhistoriques de la Macédoine, Musée National Stip.
GARFINKEL, Y.
1987 “Burnt lime products and social implications in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Villages of the Near East” Paléorient 13(1), 69-76.
507
GARSTANG, J.
1953 Prehistoric Mersin, Yümüktepe in Southern Turkey, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
GATSOV, I.
1995 “Flint Production from the Ninth to Sixth Millennium BC” in D. Bailey and I. Panayotov (Eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology No. 22, Madison, Prehistory Press, 73-77.
2003 “Chipped stone assemblages from Pendik: Technological and Typological Analysis” in M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen (Eds.), From Villages to Towns: Studies presented to Ufuk Esin, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 283-292.
2005 “Some observation about bullet core technique during 7th/6th millennium BC” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 213-220.
2009 Prehistoric chipped stone assemblages from Eastern Thrace and the South Marmara Region, 7th-5th millennium BC, BAR International Series 1904, Hedges, Oxford.
GATSOV, I. and M. ÖZDOĞAN
1994 “Some Epi-Paleolithic sites from NW Turkey: Ağaçlı, Domalı and Gümüşdere” Anatolica XX, 97-120.
GAUL, J.H.
1948 The Neolithic Period in Bulgaria: early food producing cultures of Eastern Europe, Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 16.
GAUß, W.
1997 “Kulttischchen” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 235-254.
GEBEL, H.G.
1985 “Notiz zur Obsidianindustrie von Altınkum Plajı bei Didyma” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34, 5-28.
GÉRARD, F.
2001 “Stratigraphy and Architecture on the Southwest Flank of Ilıpınar” in J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (Eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 177-222.
GÉRARD, F. and L. THISSEN (Eds.)
2002 The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia CAL BC, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
508
GIMBUTAS, M.
1989 “Figurines and Cult Equipments: Their role in the reconstruction of Neolithic Religion” in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 171-227.
GIMBUTAS, M. (Ed.)
1976 Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 1, Los Angeles.
GIMBUTAS, M., S. WINN, and D. SHIMABUKU (Eds.)
1989 Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles.
GODON, M.
2005 “New Results and Remarks about Neolithic pottery in Central Anatolia: A view from Tepecik-Çiftlik” Colloquium Anatolicum IV, 91-103.
GÖRSDORF, J.
1997 “14C-Altersbestimmungen” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 377-384.
2005 “14C-Datierungen aus Aşağı Pınar” in H. Parzinger and H. Schwarzberg (Eds.), Aşağı Pınar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik, Archäologie in Eurasien 18, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern, 417-422.
GÖRSDORF, J. and J. BOJADŽIEV
1996 “Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Berliner 14C-Datierungen von bulgarischen archäologischen Fundplätzen” Eurasia Antiqua 2, 105-174.
GÜLDOĞAN, E.
2007 “Tarak-Baskı Impresso Çanak Çömleği yapımında kullanılan teknikler ve Mezraa-Teleilat yerleşimi örnekleri” in M. Alparslan, M. Doğan-Alparslan and H. Peker (Eds.), Festschrift in Honor of Belkıs and Ali Dinçol, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 299-307.
GÜNEL, S.
2003 “Aydın ve Muğla İlleri 2001 Yılı Yüzey Araştırmaları” XX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 113-126.
2006 “New contributions to Western Anatolian Cultural History: Aydın Region Survey Project” Prähistorische Zeitschrift 81(2), 153-174.
509
2007 “Çine-Tepecik Höyüğü 2005 Yılı Kazıları” XXVIII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 231-246.
GÜROVA, M.
2004 “Evolution and Retardation: Flint Assemblages from Tell Karanovo” in V. Nikolov, K. Băčvarov and P. Kalchev (Eds.), Prehistoric Thrace, Stara Zagora, 244-253.
HAKYEMEZ, H.Y., T. ERKAL and F. GÖKTAŞ
1999 “Late Quaternary evolution of the Gediz and Büyük Menderes grabens, Western Anatolia, Turkey” Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 549-554.
HALBAEK, H.
1970 “The Paleoethnobotany” in J. Mellaart, Excavation at Hacılar, Edinburgh, 189-244.
HALSTEAD, P.
1989 “Like Rising Damp? An ecological approach to the spread of farming in south east and central Europe” in A.Milles, D. Williams and N. Gardner (Eds.), The Begininngs of Agriculture, BAR International Series 496, 23-53.
1999 “Neighbours from Hell? The Household in Neolithic Greece” in P.Halstead (Ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 77-95.
2004 “Farming and Feasting in the Neolithic of Greece: the ecological context of fighting with food” Documenta Praehistorica XXXI, 151-161.
HANSEN, S.
2005 “Neolithic Figurines- East-West” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 195-212.
HARMANKAYA, S. and O. TANINDI
1996 TAY- Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 1, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
HARMANKAYA, S., O. TANINDI and M. ÖZBAŞARAN
1997 TAY- Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 2, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
HARMANKAYA, S. and B. ERDOĞU
2003 “The prehistoric sites of Gökçeada, Turkey” in M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen (Eds.), From Villages to Towns: Studies presented to Ufuk Esin, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 459-479.
510
HAYDEN, B.
1995 “The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery” in W.K. Barnett and J.W. Hoopes (Eds.), The Emergence of Pottery, Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, 257-266.
2003 “Were Luxury Foods the First Domesticates? Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives from Southeast Asia” World Archaeology 34(3), 458-469.
HERLING, L., K. KASPER, C. LICHTER and R. MERİÇ
2008 “Im Westen nichts Neues? Ergebnisse der Grabungen 2003 und 2004 in Dedecik-Heybelitepe” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 58, 13-65.
HILLER, S.
1997 “Architektur” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 55-92.
HILLER, S. and V. NIKOLOV (Eds.)
1997 Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger.
HODDER, I.
1997 “Always momentary, fluid and flexible: Towards a reflexive excavation methodology” Antiquity 71, 691-700.
1999 “Renewed Work at Çatalhöyük” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 157-164.
2005 “Introduction” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1-14.
2006 The Leopard’s Tale, revealing the mysteries of Çatalhöyük, London, Thames and Hudson.
2007 “Çatalhöyük, yeni çalışmalar” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 313-329.
HODDER, I. (Ed.)
1996 On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
2000 Towards reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
511
2005a Çatalhöyük perspectives, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
2005b Changing materialities at Çatalhöyük, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
2005c Inhabiting Çatalhöyük, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
2006 Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL Area reports from the 1995-99 Seasons, Cambridge and London, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
HODDER, I. and R. MATTHEWS
1998 “Çatalhöyük: 1990’s Seasons” in R. Matthews (Ed.), Ancient Anatolia, Ankara, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara , 43-51.
HOOD, S.
1981 Excavations in Chios 1938-1955, Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala, Oxford, British School of Archaology at Athens.
HOREJS, B.
2008 “Çukuriçi Höyük. A New Excavation Project in the Eastern Aegean” 4. Feb. 2008, Aegeo-Balkan Prehistory. http://www.aegeobalkanprehistory.net/article.php?id_art=9 (9 June 2008).
HOWELL, C., G. ARSEBÜK AND S.L. KUHN
1996 “The Middle Pleistocene Lithic Assemblages from Yarımburgaz Cave, Turkey” Paléorient 22(1), 31-49.
HÜTTERROTH, W.-D. and V. HÖHFELD
2002 Türkei: Geographie, Geschichte, Wirtschaft, Politik, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.
IVANOVA, M.
2008 Befestigte Siedlungen auf dem Balkan, in der Ägäis und in Westanatolien, ca. 5000-2000 v. Chr, Tübinger Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlicher Archäologie 8, Münster, Waxmann.
IVANOVA, S. and S. SIRAKOVA
1995 “Chronology and Cultures of the Bulgarian Paleolithic” in D. Bailey and I. Panayotov (Eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology No. 22, Madison, Prehistory Press, 9-54.
512
JABLONKA, P.
2000 “Computergestützte Rekonstruktion und Darstellung der Stratigraphie von Troia” Studia Troica 10, 99-122.
JOUKOWSKY, M.S.
1986 Prehistoric Aphrodisias, volume I-II, Archaeologica Transatlantica III, Louvain-la-Neuve.
KANSU, Ş.A.
1963 “Ege (İzmir) Alt Paleolitiğine ait ilk not” Belleten 27, 485-490.
1969 “İzmir dolaylarında bulunan ikinci bir Alt Paleolitik alete ait not” Belleten 129.
KARA, N.
1997 Ulucak Yöresinin (Kemalpaşa Ovası) Arazi Kullanımı. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, İzmir, Ege University, Department of Geography.
KARALI, I.
2005 Archaeomalacological Remains from Ulucak, Western Turkey (İzmir Region): A Preliminary Report, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.3, Special Issue on Ulucak, 23-26.
KARUL, N.
1994 Hoca Çeşme En Alt Evrelerinin Tarihlenme Sorunları: 4. ve 3. Evre Çanak Çömleği Değerlendirilmesinin Tarihlenme Sorununun Çözümüne Katkısı. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Istanbul, Istanbul University, Prehistory Department.
2006 “Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Neolitik ve Kalkolitik Çağ Yerleşimlerinin Sınırlandırılması” in E. Özgen and S. Günel (Eds.), Kültürlerin Yansıması: Hayat Erkanal’a Armağan, İstanbul, Homer Yayınevi, 479-485.
2007 “Aktopraklık: Kuzeybatı Anadolu’da Gelişkin Bir Köy” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 387-392.
KARUL, N. and J. BERTRAM
2005 “From Anatolia to Europe: the Ceramic Sequence of Hoca Çeşme in Turkish Thrace” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 117-130.
KARUL, N., Z. ERES, M. ÖZDOĞAN and H. PARZINGER
2003 Aşağı Pınar I: Einführung, Forschungsgeschichte, Stratigraphie und Architektur, Archäologie in Eurasien 15, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.
513
KAYAN, İ.
1996 “Holocene Coastal Development and Archaeoloy in Turkey” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N.F., Supplement Band 102, 37-59.
1998 Ulucak Höyüğü, Fiziki Coğrafya, Paleocoğrafya ve Jeo-Arkeoloji Araştırmaları, Unpublished Report, İzmir, Ege Üniversitesi.
1999 “Kemalpaşa Çevresinde Geçmişten Günümüze Arazi Kullanımı ve Günümüzdeki Sorunlar” in Kemalpaşa Kültür ve Çevre Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı, İzmir, 1-16.
2004 “Paleogeography”, in A. Çilingiroğlu et al., 3-9.
KORFMANN, M.
1973 “The sling as a weapon” Scientific American 229/4, 34-42.
1989 “Beşik-Tepe. Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabung von 1987 und 1988” Archäologisher Anzeiger, 473-481.
KORFMANN, M., F. DEDEOĞLU and M. ERDALKIRAN
2007 “Ulucak Höyük Neolitik Dönem Sapan Taneleri” in G. Umurtak, Ş. Dönmez and A. Yurtsever (Eds.), Refik Duru’ya Armağan, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 41-50.
KOTSAKIS, K.
1996 “The Coastal Settlements of Thessaly” in G.A. Papathanassopoulos (Ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens, 49-57.
2001 “Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece. Continuity, discontinuity or change of course” Documenta Praehistorica, XXVIII, 63-73.
KOZLOWSKI J.K. and M. KACZANOWSKA
2004 “Gravettian/Epigravettian Sequences in the Balkans and Anatolia” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 4(1), 5-18.
KRAFT, J.C., İ. KAYAN, H. BRÜCKNER and G. RAPP
2003 “Sedimantary Facies Patterns and the Interpretation of Paleogeographies of Ancient Troia, in G.A. Wagner, E. Pernicka and H.-P. Uerpmann (Eds.), 361-378.
KRAMER, C.
1985 “Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology” Annual Review of Anthropology 14, 77-102.
KRAUß, R.
in press “Karanovo und das südosteuropäische Chronologiesystem aus heutiger Sicht” Eurasia Antiqua 14, (2009).
514
KUNIHOLM, P and M. NEWTON
2002 “Radiocarbon and dendrochronology” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 275-278.
KURDAŞ, K.
1970 “Önsöz” 1968 Yaz Çalışmaları, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Keban Projesi Yayınları, Seri I, Yayın 1, Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara, V-VII.
KUZUCUOĞLU, C.
2002 “The environmental frame in Central Anatolia from the 9th to the 6th millenia cal. BC” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 33-45.
KÜRSCHNER, H., T. RAUS and J. VENTER
1997 Pflanzen der Türkei, Wiesbaden, Quelle und Meyer Verlag.
KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA, N.
1999 “The Neolithic use of Theopetra Cave in Thessaly” in P. Halstead (Ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 142-152.
2005 “Worlds in transition: Mesolithic/Neolithic lifestyles at the cave of Theopetra, Thessaly/Greece” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 173-182.
2006 “The beginning of the Neolithic in Thessaly” in I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (Eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: The present state of research in the Early Neolithic, Langenweissbach, Beier & Beran, 59-68.
LAMBECK, K., T.M. ESAT and E.-K. POTTER
2002 “Links between climate and sea levels for the past three million years” Nature 419, 199-206.
LAST, J.
1996 “Surface Pottery at Çatalhöyük” in On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95, I. Hodder (Ed.), 115-172.
2005 “Pottery from the East Mound” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük, 101-138.
van der LEEUW, S.
1993 “Giving the Potter a Choice” in P. Lemonnier (Ed.), Technological Choices, transformation in material culture since the Neolithic, London/New York, Routledge, 238-288.
515
LEMONNIER, P.
1993 “Introduction” in P. Lemonnier (Ed.), Technological Choices, transformation in material culture since the Neolithic, London/New York, Routledge, 1-35.
LICHARDUS, J.
1991 “Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Einleitung” in J. Lichardus (Ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche, Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 13-32.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M.
1993 “Zum Beginn des Neolithikums im Tal der Struma” Anatolica XIX, 99-116.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M., J.-P. DEMOULE, L. PERNIČEVA, M. GREBSKA- KULOVA and I. KULOV
2000 “Zur bemalten Keramik aus der frühneolithischen Siedlung von Kovačevo (SW- Bulgarien), in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo Band III: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, Wien, Phoibos Verlag, 27-50.
2002 “The site of Kovačevo and the Beginnings of the Neolithic Period in Southwestern Bulgaria” in M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Beiträge zu Jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien, Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 99-158.
LICHTER, C.
2002 “Central-Western Anatolia- key region in the neolithization of Europe?” in F. Gérard, L. Thissen (Eds.),161-170.
2005 “Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of research” in Lichter (Ed.), 59-74.
2006 “Zum Forschungsstand des Neolithikums und frühen Chalkolithikums in Westanatolien” in I. Gatsov and H. Schwarzberg (Eds.), Aegean-Marmara-Black Sea: the present state of research on the Early Neolithic, Langenweissbach, Beier & Beran, 29-46.
LICHTER, C. (Ed.)
2005 How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC, BYZAS 2, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları.
LICHTER, C. and R. MERİÇ
2007 “Dedecik-Heybelitepe” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 385-386.
516
LIRITZIS, I.
2005 “Ulucak (Smyrna, Turkey): Chemical Analysis with Clustering of Ceramics and Soils and Obsidian Hydration Dating” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.3, Special Issue on Ulucak, 33-45.
LLOYD, S.
1956 Early Anatolia, Harmondsworth, Penguin.
1965 “Anatolia: An Archeological Renaissance” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 5, 1-14.
LOHMANN, H.
1995 “Milet 1992-1993, Survey in der Chora von Milet, Vorbericht über die Kampagnen der Jahre 1990, 1992 and 1993” Archäologische Anzeiger, 293-328.
LONDON, G.
1989 “Past Present: The Village Potters of Cyprus” The Biblical Archaeologist 52(4), 219-229.
MACANOVA, V.
2002 “Keramik aus der neolithischen Siedlung bei Rakitovo” in M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Beiträge zu Jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien, Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 191-223.
MADDY, D., T. DEMİR, D.R. BRIDGLAND, A. VELDKAMP, C. STEMERDINK, T. van der SCHRIEK and D. SCHREVE
2007 “The Pliocene initiation and Early Pleistocene volcanic disruption of the paleo-Gediz fluvial system, Western Turkey” Quaternary Science Reviews 26, 2864-2882.
MAKKAY, J.
1984 Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe, Budapest, Akademiai Kiado.
MALINOWSKI, B.
1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific, New York, E.P. Dutton.
MARINOVA, E.
2006 Vergleichende paläoethnobotanische Untersuchung zur Vegetationsgeschichte und zur Entwicklung der prähistorischen Landnutzung in Bulgarien, Dissertatiomes Botanicae 401, Berlin/Stuttgart, J. Cramer.
517
MARTIN, L., N. RUSSELL and D. CARRUTHERS
2002 “Animal remains from the Central Anatolian Neolithic” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 193-216.
MARTINOLI, D.
2004 “Food plant use, temporal changes and site seasonality at Epipaleolithic Öküzini and Karain B Caves, Southwest Anatolia, Turkey” Paléorient 30(2), 61-80.
MATTHEWS, R.
2002 “Homogeneity versus diversity: dynamics of the Central Anatolian Neolithic” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 91-104.
MEGALOUDI, F.
2005 “Archeobotanical Finds from Ulucak, Western Turkey (İzmir Region): A preliminary Study” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 5.3, Special Issue on Ulucak, 27-32.
MELLAART, J.
1958 “Excavations at Hacılar, first preliminary report” Anatolian Studies VIII, 7-89.
1961a “Excavations at Hacılar, fourth preliminary report” Anatolian Studies XI, 39-76.
1961b “Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau” Anatolian Studies XI, 159-184.
1962 “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük” Anatolian Studies XII, 41-66.
1963 “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1962, Second Preliminary Report” Anatolian Studies XIII, 43-104.
1964a “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1963, Third Preliminary Report” Anatolian Studies XIV, 39-120.
1964b Anatolia before c. 4000 BC and c. 2300-1750 BC, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
1965 “Çatal Hüyük West” Anatolian Studies XV, 135-156.
1966 “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, 1965, fourth preliminary report” Anatolian Studies XVI, 165-192.
1967 Çatalhöyük: A Neolithic town in Anatolia, London, Thames and Hudson.
1970 Excavations at Hacılar, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
MERİÇ, M.
1993 “Pre-Bronze Age Settlements of West-Central Anatolia” Anatolica XIX, 143-150.
518
MERKYTE, I.
2003 “The Mesolithic Syndrome in Southeastern Europe” Acta Archaeologica 74, 307-317.
MILLER, M.A.
1996 “The Manufacture of Cockle Shell Beads at Early Neolithic Franchthi Cave, Greece: A Case of Craft Specialization?” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9.1, 7-37.
MILOJČIĆ, V.
1956 “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf der Gremnos-Magula bei Larisa 1956” Archäologischer Anzeiger 71, 141-183.
1959 “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1958, I: Die Ausgrabungen im Gebiet der Gremnos-Otzaki- und Soufli-Magula bei Larissa” Archäologischer Anzeiger 74, 141-183.
1978 Book review: Gimbutas, M. (Ed.) 1976 Neolithic Macedonia as reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 1, Los Angeles, Germania 56, 548-559.
MILOJČIĆ, V., J. BOESSNECK and M. HOPF
1962 Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien I. Das Präkeramische Neolithikum sowie die Tier- und Pflanzenreste, Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 2, Bonn, Verlag Rudolf Habelt.
MITHEN, S.
2003 After the Ice: A Global Human History, 20,000-5000 BC, London,Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
MITREVSKI, D.
2003 “Prehistory in Republic of Macedonia-FYROM” in V. Grammenos (Ed.), Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans, Thessaloniki, Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece Nr. 3, 13-72.
MIYAKE, Y. and A. TSUNEKİ
1996 “The earliest pottery sequence of the Levant: New data from Tell El-Kerkh 2, Northern Syria” Paléorient 22(1), 109-123.
MIZONI-DÉROCHE, M. MENU and P. WALTER
1995 “The working of pigment during the Aurignacian period: evidence from Üçağızlı Cave” Antiquity 69, 153-158.
519
MORTENSEN, P.
1970 “Chipped stone industry” in J. Mellaart, Excavation at Hacılar, Edinburgh, 153-157.
MUNCHAEV, R.M.
1997 “The Halaf Culture: Peculiarities of the V. Mil. BC North Mesopotamian Architecture” Al-Rāfidān XVIII, 69-79.
MÜLLER, J.
1988 “Cultural Definition of the Early Neolithic and its Interaction in the Eastern Adriatic” Berytus XXXVI, 101-125.
NIEUWENHUYSE, O.
2007 Plain and Painted Pottery: The rise of Neolithic ceramic styles on the Syrian and North Mesopotamian Plains, Turhout, Brepols.
NIKOLOV, V.
1989 “Das Flusstal der Struma als Teil der Strasse von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa” in S. Bökönyi (Ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections, Budapest, Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 191-200.
1992 “Die Untersuchungen der frühneolithischen Siedlung Slatina (Sofia) in den Jahren 1985-1987” Studia Praehistorica 11-12, 68-73.
1997 “Die neolithische Keramik” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 105-146.
2004 “Dynamics of the Cultural Processes in Neolithic Thrace” in V. Nikolov, K. Băčvarov and P. Kalchev (Eds.), Prehistoric Thrace, Stara Zagora, 18-25.
NIKOLOV, V. and E. SIRAKOVA
2002 “Zwei frühneolithische Wohnhäuser aus Slatina-Sofia” in M. Lichardus-Itten, J. Lichardus and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Beiträge zu Jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien, Bonn, Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 165-190.
ORTON, C., P. TYERS and A. VINCE
1993 Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
OTTE, M., I. YALÇINKAYA, J.-M. LEOTARD, M. KARTAL, O. BAR-YOSEF, J. KOZLOWSKI, I. LÓPEZ-BAYÓN and A. MARSCHACK
1995 “The Epi-Paleolithic of Öküzini Cave (SW Anatolia) and its mobiliary art” Antiquity 69, 931-934.
520
ÖKSE, A.T.
1999 Önasya Arkeolojisi Seramik Terimleri, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
2002 Arkeolojik Çalışmalarda Seramik Değerlendirme Yöntemleri, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
ÖZBAŞARAN, M.
1999 “Musular: A General Assessment on a New Neolithic Site in Central Anatolia” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 147-163.
2000a “Melendiz Boyu Yerleşmelerinden: Musular” in O. Belli (Ed.), Türkiye Arkeolojisi ve İstanbul Üniversitesi (1932-1999), Ankara, Başak Matbaacılık, 44-50.
2000b “The Neolithic site of Musular-Central Anatolia” Anatolica XXVI, 129-151.
2003 “Aşıklı-Musular ilişkisinde kireç tabanlı yapılar” in M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen (Eds.), From Villages to Towns: Studies presented to Ufuk Esin, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 361-372.
ÖZBAŞARAN, M. and H. BUITENHUIS
2002 “Proposal for a regional terminology for Central Anatolia” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), The Neolithic of Central Anatolia, internal developments and external relations during the 9th-6th millennia CAL BC, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 67-78.
ÖZBAŞARAN, M. and M. MOLIST
2007 “Akarçay Tepe: Orta Fırat’ta Neolitik Döneme Ait Yeni Bir Yerleşme” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 179-188.
ÖZBAŞARAN, M., G. DURU, N. KAYACAN, B. ERDOĞU and H. BUITENHUIS
2007 “Musular 1996-2004: Genel Değerlendirme” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 273-284.
ÖZBAŞARAN, N.
1989 Pendik Çanak Çömleği. Unpublished MA Thesis, Istanbul, Istanbul University, Prehistory Department.
ÖZBEK, O.
2000 “A prehistoric stone axe production site in Turkish Thrace: Hamaylıtarla” Documenta Praehistorica XXVII, 167-171.
ÖZDOĞAN, A.
1999 “Çayönü” in M. Özdoğan, N.Başgelen (Eds.), 35-65.
521
ÖZDOĞAN, E.
2007 “Neolitik Dönem Kil Kapamaları: Aşağı Pınar Örneği” in M. Alparslan, M.-D. Alparslan and Hasan Peker (Eds.), Belkıs Dinçol ve Ali Dinçol'a Armağan, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 561-568.
ÖZDOĞAN, E. and H. SCHWARZBERG
2008 “Aşağı Pınar Kazı Çalışmaları 2007” Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 25, 21-22.
ÖZDOĞAN, M.
1979 Fikirtepe. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Istanbul, Istanbul University, Prehistory Department.
1983 “Pendik: A Neolithic Site of Fikirtepe Culture in the Marmara Region” in R.M. Böhmer and H. Hauptmann (Eds.), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens, Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, Mainz am Rhein, 401-411.
1986 “Prehistoric Sites in Gelibolu Peninsula” Anadolu Araştırmaları X, 51-66.
1989 “1988 yılı Trakya ve Marmara Bölgesi Araştırmaları” VII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 443-459.
1990 “1989 Yılı Marmara Araştırmaları ve Toptepe Kazısı” XII. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 345-375.
1993 “Vinça and Anatolia: A new look at a very old problem (or redefining Vinça Culture from the perspective of Near Eastern tradition)” Anatolica XIX, 173-193.
1994 “Obsidian in Anatolia: an Archaeological Perspective on the Status of Research” Archaeometry 1994, 423-431.
1995 “Neolithic in Turkey: The Status of Research” The Readings in Prehistory, Studies presented to Halet Çambel, İstanbul, Graphis, 41-59.
1997 “The Beginning of Neolithic Economies in Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian Perspective” Journal of European Archaeology 5.2, 1-33.
1998a “Anatolia from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene Climatic Optimum: Cultural Formations and the Impact of the Environmental Setting” Paléorient 23(2), 25-38.
1998b “Hoca Çeşme: an Early Neolithic Anatolian colony in the Balkans?” in P. Anreiter (Ed.), Man and the Animal World, In Memoriam Sandor Bökönyi, Budapest, 435- 451.
1999a “Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cultures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 203-224.
1999b “Concluding Remarks” in M. Özdoğan and N.Başgelen (Eds.), 225-236.
522
2000 “The Appearence of Early Neolithic Cultures in Northwestern Turkey. Some Problems” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo, Band III, Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südost Europa, Wien, Phoibos, 165-170.
2001 “Redefining the Neolithic of Anatolia, a critical overview” in R.T.J. Cappers and S. Bottema (Eds.), The Dawn of Farming in the Near East, Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 6, Berlin, 155-161.
2002a “On Arrows and Sling Missiles: What Happened to the Arrows” in R. Aslan et al. (Eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, Remshalden-Grunbach, Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 437-444.
2002b “Defining the Neolithic of Central Anatolia” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 253-258.
2005 “Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life: what we know and what we do not know” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 13-28.
2006 “Keban Projesi ve Türkiye’de Kurtarma Kazıları” in V. Tolun and T. Takaoğlu (Eds.), Sevim Buluç Anı Kitabı, Çanakkale, 13-19.
2007a “Mezraa-Teleilat” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 189-202.
2007b “Marmara Bölgesi Neolitik Çağ kültürleri” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 401-426.
ÖZDOĞAN, M. and A. KOYUNLU
1986 “Yarımburgaz Mağarası, 1986 yılı çalışmalarının ilk sonuçları ve bazı gözlemler” Arkeoloji ve Sanat 32/33, 4-17.
ÖZDOĞAN, M. and I. GATSOV
1998 “The Aceramic Neolthic Period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean” Anatolica XXIV, 209-232.
ÖZDOĞAN, M. and N. BAŞGELEN (Eds.)
1999 Neolithic in Turkey: The Cradle of Civilization, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
2007 Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: yeni kazılar, yeni bulgular, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
ÖZDOĞAN, M., Y. MİTAKE and N. ÖZBAŞARAN-DEDE
1991 “An Interim Report on Excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace” Anatolica XVII, 59-121.
523
ÖZDÖL, S.
2008a “Çatalhöyük, Suberde ve Erbaba Neolitik Dönemi Çanak Çömleğinin Yeniden Değerlendirilmesi: Erken, Orta ve Geç Gelenekler” XXV. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 375-392.
2008b “Anadolu Platosunda Çanak Çömlekli Neolitik Dönemin Gelişkin Evresi: “Orta Gelenek” Çatalhöyük ve Erbaba Kanıtları, Ege Arkeoloji Dergisi XI. in press.
ÖZKAN, S.
2001 “Köşk Höyük Seals” Anatolica XXVII, 15-22.
ÖZSAİT, M.
1985 “1983 yılı Burdur-Isparta çevresi prehistorik araştırmaları” II. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 205-220.
1986 “1984 yılı Burdur-Isparta çevresi tarihöncesi araştırmaları” III. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 389-408.
1993 “Prospections archeologieques en Pisidie” Anatolica XIX, 195-210.
ÖZTAN, A.
2002 “Köşk Höyük: Anadolu Arkeolojisine Yeni Katkılar” TÜBA-AR V, 55-69.
2007 “Köşk Höyük: Niğde-Bor Ovası’nda Bir Neolitik Yerleşim” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 223-236.
ÖZTAN, A. and S. ÖZKAN
2003 “Çizi ve Nokta Bezekli Köşk Höyük Seramikleri” in M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen (Eds.), From Villages to Towns: Studies presented to Ufuk Esin, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 447-458.
PARZINGER, H.
1993 Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Taurus, Mainz am Rhein.
PARZINGER, H. and H. SCHWARZBERG
2005 Aşağı Pınar II. Die mittel- und spätneolithische Keramik, Archäologie in Eurasien 18, Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern.
PAVLŮ, I.
2003 “Neolithic Traditions: Anatolia and the Linear Band Ceramic Culture” in M. Özdoğan, H. Hauptmann and N. Başgelen (Eds.), From Villages to Towns: Studies presented to Ufuk Esin, İstanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 141-146.
524
PAVÚK, J.
1997 Book review: H. Todorova and I. Vajsov 1993 Novokamenata epocha v Bălgaria. Krajat na sedmo-šesto chiljadoletije predi novota era. Sofia, Verlag Nauka i izkustvo. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 72, 247-251.
PELTENBURG, E.
2004 “Social space in early sedentary communities of Southwest Asia and Cyprus” in E. Peltenburg and A. Wasse (Eds.), Neolithic Revolution: new perspectives on Southwest Asia in light of recent discoveries on Cyprus, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 71-90.
PERLÈS, C.
1992 “Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5.2, 115-164.
2001 Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
2003 “An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neolithization of Greece” Documenta Praehistorica XXX, 99-113.
2005 “From the Near East to Greece: let’s reverse the focus, cultural elements that didn’t transfer” In C. Lichter (Ed.), İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 275-290.
PERLÈS, C. and K. D. VITELLI
1999 “Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece” in P. Halstead (Ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 96-107.
PERNITCHEVA, L.
1990 “Le site de Kovatchevo, néolithique ancien, dans le département de Blagoevgrad” Studia Praehistorica 10, 142-196.
PESCHLOW-BINDOKAT, A.
2002 “Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2000 in Herakleia am Latmos und dem Zugehörigen Territorium (Beşparmak)” XIX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 255-262.
2003 Frühe Menschenbilder, die prähistorische Felsmalereien des Latmos-Gebirges (Westtürkei), Mainz am Rhein, Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
PETRASCH, J.
1986 “Typologie und Funktion neolithischer Öfen in Mittel- und Südosteuropa” Acta praehistorica et archaeologica 18, 33-83.
525
PÉTREQUIN, P.
1993 “North Wind, South Wind: Neolithic technical choices in the Jura Mountains, 3700-2400 BC” in P. Lemonnier (Ed.), Technological Choices, transformation in material culture since the Neolithic, London/New York, Routledge, 36-76.
POPOV, V.
1996 Hronologia I periodizatsia na neolitnite i halkolitni kulturi ot porechieto nar. Russenski Lom, Pyce.
PRATT, J.A.F.
1999 “Determining the Function of One of the New World's Earliest Pottery Assemblages: The Case of San Jacinto, Colombia” Latin American Antiquity 10.1, 71-85.
PREUCEL R. and I. HODDER (Eds.),
1999 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, a Reader, Oxford, Blackwell.
PULAK, C.
2005 “Das Schiffswrack von Uluburun” in Ü. Yalçın, C. Pulak and R. Slotta (Eds.), Das Schiff von Uluburun: Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren, Bochum, Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum Nr. 138, 55-102.
PYKE, G.
1996 “Structures and Architecture” in K.A. Wardle (Ed.), Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964, Supplemantary Volume No 25, London, British School at Athens, 39-52.
RADUNČEVA, A., V. MACANOVA, I. GATSOV, G. KOVAČEV, G. GEORGIEV, E. ČAKALOVA and E. BOŽILOVA,
2002 Neolitnoto selište do grad Rakitovo, Sofia, Gal-iko.
REINGRUBER, A.
2005 “The Argissa Magoula and the beginning of the Neolithic in Thessaly” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 155-172.
2008 Die Argissa-Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende Mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte Transägäischer Beziehungen, Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes, Band 35, Bonn, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
526
RENFREW, C.,
1996 “Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change” in R.W. Preucel and I. Hodder (Eds.), Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, Oxford, Blackwell, 114-142.
RENFREW, C. and P. BAHN
2004 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice, London, Thames and Hudson.
RENFREW, J.
1976 “Carbonized Seeds from Anza” in M. Gimbutas (Ed.), Neolithic Macedonia, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 1, Los Angeles, 300-310.
1989 “Carbonized Grain and Seeds” in in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 307-310.
RICE, P.M.
1987 Pottery Analysis: a source book, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
ROBERTS N. and C. KUZUCUOĞLU
1997 “Évolution de l’environnement en Anatolie de 20 000 á 6000 BP” Paléorient 23(2), 7-24.
ROBERTS, N., J.M. REED, M.J. LENG, C. KUZUCUOĞLU, M. FONTUGNE, J. BERTAUX, H. WOLDRING, S. BOTTEMA, S. BLACK, E. HUNT and M. KARABIYIKOĞLU
2001 “The tempo of Holocene climatic change in the eastern Mediterranean region: new high-resolution crater lake sediment data from central Turkey” The Holocene 11(6), 721-736.
RODDEN, R.J.
1962 “Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 Season)” Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 28, 267-288.
1965 “An Early Neolithic Village in Greece” Scientific American 212(4), 82-88.
ROHLING E.J. and H. PÄLIKE
2005 “Centennial-scale climate cooling with a sudden cold event around 8,200 years ago” Nature 434, 975-979.
ROODENBERG, J.
1988 “Preface” Anatolian Studies XV, special issue on the Aceramic in SE Turkey, V-VI.
527
1995a “Stratigraphy and Architecture” in J. Roodenberg (Ed.), The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in Northwestern Anatolia, 1987-91, İstanbul, Nederlands Historisch- Achaeologisch Instituut, 35-76.
1995b “Chronologies and Conclusion” J. Roodenberg (Ed.), The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in Northwestern Anatolia, 1987-91, İstanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 167-180.
1999a “Ilıpınar, an early farming village in the İznik Lake Basin” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 194-202.
1999b “Investigations at Menteşe Höyük in the Yenişehir Basin (1996-97)” Anatolica XXV, 21-36.
2001 “Miscellaneous” in J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (Eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 223-235.
ROODENBERG, J., A. van AS and S. ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG
2008 “Barcın Höyük in the plain of Yenişehir (2005-2006), a preliminary note on the fieldwork, pottery and human remains of the prehistoric levels” Anatolica XXXIV, 53-60.
ROODENBERG, J, A. van AS, L. JACOBS and M.-H. WIJNEN
2003 “Early Settlement in the Plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia).The Basal Occupation Layers at Menteşe” Anatolica XXIX, 17-60.
ROODENBERG, J., L. THISSEN and H. BUITENHUIS
1989-90“Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Investigations at Ilıpınar in NW Anatolia” Anatolica XVI, 61-144.
ROODENBERG, J. and S. ALPASLAN-ROODENBERG
2007 “Ilıpınar ve Menteşe: Doğu Marmara’da Neolitik döneme ait İki Yerleşme” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 393-400.
2008 “Ilıpınar and Menteşe: early settlement in the eastern Marmara region” in D. Bailey, A. Whittle and D. Hofmann (Eds.), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 8-16.
ROODENBERG, J. and W. SCHIER
2001 “Radiocarbon Determinations” in J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (Eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 257-278.
ROOSEVELT, C. and C. LUKE
2007 “Central Lydia Archaeological Survey: 2006 Results” 25. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 305-326.
528
ROSEN, A. and N. ROBERTS
2005 “The History of Settlement and Social Landscapes in the Early Holocene” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, 55-74.
ROSENSTOCK, E.
2005 “Höyük, Toumba and Mogila: a settlement form in Anatolia and the Balkans and its ecological determination 6500-5500 cal BC” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 221-238.
RUSSELL, N.
2005 “Çatalhöyük Worked Bone” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 339-367.
RUSSELL N. and L. MARTIN
2005 “Çatalhöyük Mammal Remains” in I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük, reports from the 1995-99 seasons, Cambridge and London, Mc Donald Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 33-98.
RUNNELS, C.
1995 “Review of Aegean Prehistory IV: The Stone Age of Greece from the Paleolithic to the Advent of the Neolithic”American Journal of Archaeology 99(4), 699-728.
RUNNELS, C. and M. ÖZDOĞAN
2001 “The Palaeolithic of the Bosphorus Region, NW Turkey” Journal of Field Archaeology 28, 69-92.
SAĞLAMTİMUR, H.
2007 “Ege Gübre Neolitik Yerleşimi” in M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen (Eds.), 373-376.
SCHMIDT, K.
2007 Sie bauten die ersten Tempel: das rätselhafte Heiligtum der Steinzeitjäger, München, C.H. Beck.
SCHOOP, U.-D.
2002 “Frühneolithikum in südwestanatolischen Seengebiet? Eine kritische Betrachtung” R. in Aslan et. al (Eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, Remshalden- Grunbach, Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 421-436.
2005a Das anatolische Chalcolithikum. Urgeschichtliche Studien I, Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, Remshalden.
2005b “The late escape of the Neolithic from the Central Anatolian Plain” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 41-58.
529
SCHOOP, U.-D. and J. SEEHER
2006 “Absolute Chronologie in Boğazköy-Hattuša: Das Potential der Radiokarbondaten” in D.R. Mielke, U.-D. Schoop and J. Seeher (Eds.), Strukturierung und Datierung in der hethitischen Archäologie, BYZAS 4, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 53-75.
SCHUBERT, H.
1999 Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien, Rahden, Verlag Marie Leidorf.
SCHWARZBERG, H.
2005 “Prismatic polypod vessels and their way to Europe” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 255-273.
SEEHER, J.
1987 Demircihöyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975-78, III, Die Keramik 1, Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
1990 “Coşkuntepe, Anatolisches Neolithikum am Nordostufer der Ägäis” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 40, 9-15.
SHEPARD, A.O.
1980 Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Ann Arbor, Braun-Brumfield.
SHERRATT, A.
1981 “Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution” Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 158-198.
1987 “Cups that cheered” in W. Walrdren and R.C. Kennard (Eds.), Bell Beakers of the Western Mediterranean, BAR International Series 287, Oxford, 84-114.
2004 “Fractal Farmers: Patterns of Neolithic Origin and Dispersal” in J. Cherry, C. Scarre and Stephen Shennan (Eds.), Explaining social change: Studies in honour of Colin Renfrew, Cambridge, McDonald Institute Monographs, 53-63.
SLIMAK L., S. L. KUHN, H. ROCHE, D. MOURALIS, H. BUITENHUIS, N. BALKAN-ATLI, D. BINDER, C. KUZUCUOĞLU and H. GUILLOU
2008 “Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): Archaeological evidence for early human settlement in Central Anatolia” Journal of Human Evolution 54(1), 99-111.
SREJOVIĆ, D.
1972 Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir, London.
530
STEFANOVA, T.
1996 “A comparative analysis of pottery from the ‘Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon’ and ‘Karanovo I Horizon’ and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria” Documenta Praehistorica XXIII, 15-38.
STOVES, A. and H.W.M. HODGES
1970 “Petrological Examination of Sherds” in Excavations at Hacılar, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 142-144.
ŞAHİN, F.
2008 “Keçiçayırı Kazı Çalışmaları-2007” Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 26, 25-26.
ŞENYÜREK, M., H. GÜLTEKİN, E. ŞENYÜREK and A. DÖNMEZ
1950 “Larisa Civarında Höyücek’te Yapılan Sondaj” Belleten 14, 487-494.
TAKAOĞLU, T.
2004 “Moralı: A Neolithic Mound in Central-West Anatolia” in T. Korkut (Ed.), Anadolu’da Doğdu, 60. yaşında Fahri Işık’a Armağan, İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 743-751.
2005 “Coşkuntepe: An Early Neolithic Quern Production Site in NW Turkey” Journal of Field Archaeology 30(4), 419-433.
2006 “2004 yılı Coşkuntepe Yüzey Araştırması” 23. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 411-418.
THANHEISER, U.
1997 “Botanische Funde” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo: die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Wien, Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 429-454.
THEOCHARIS, D.R.
1973 Neolithic Greece, Athens, National Bank of Greece.
THISSEN, L.
2000 “A Chronological Framework for the Neolithization of the Southern Balkans” in S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (Eds.), Karanovo Band III: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, Wien, Phoibos Verlag, 193-212.
2001 “The pottery of Ilıpınar, Phases X to VA” in J. Roodenberg and L.C. Thissen (Eds.), The Ilıpınar Excavations II, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 3-154.
531
2002 “Appendix I: CANeW 14C databases and 14C charts, Anatolia, 10000-5000 cal BC” in F. Gérard and L. Thissen (Eds.), İstanbul, Ege Yayınları, 299-338.
2005 “Coming to grips with the Aegean in prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework, 10.000-5500 cal BC” in C. Lichter (Ed.), 29-40.
2007 “Die Anfänge der Keramikproduktion in der Türkei- ein Überblick” in Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (Ed.), Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien, die ältesten Monumente der Menschheit, Stuttgart, Konrad Theiss Verlag, 218-229.
2008a “The Pottery of Phase VB” in J. Roodenberg and S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg (Eds.), Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia, The Ilıpınar Excavations Volume III, Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 91-116.
2008b “Barcın Höyük Pottery Report 2007- TACB” Unpublished preliminary report, 1- 37.
TRANTALOUDİ, K.
2005 “Faunal Exploitation at the Ulucak Höyük Area: Preliminary Report” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5.3, Special Issue on Ulucak, 47-61.
TRIGGER, B.G.
1998 “Archaeology and epistemology: Dialoguing across Darwinian Chasm” American Journal of Archaeology, 102(1), 1-34.
2006 A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
TODD, I.
1980 The Prehistory of Central Anatolia I: The Neolithic Period, Göteborg, Paul Åströms Förlag.
TODOROVA, H.
1990 “Das Frühneolithikum Nordbulgariens im Kontext des ostbalkanischen Neolithikums” in Die ersten Bauern, Zürich, 71-76.
1995 “The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian Prehistory” in D. Bailey and I. Panayotov (Eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria, Monographs in World Archaeology 22, Madison, Prehistory Press, 79-98.
TODOROVA, H. and I. VAJSOV
1993 Novokamenata epocha v Bălgaria. Krajat na sedmo-šesto chiljadoletije predi novota era. Sofia, Verlag Nauka i izkustvo.
532
TONKOV, S., H. PANOVSKA, G. POSSNERT and E. BOZILOVA
2002 “The Holocene vegetational history of Northern Pirin Mountain, southwestern Bulgaria: pollen analysis and radiocarbon dating of a core from Lake Ribno Banderishko” The Holocene 12(2), 201-210.
UMURTAK, G.
1999-2000
“Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çağlarda Burdur-Antalya Bölgesi mühürcülüğü üzerine bazı gözlemler” Adalya IV, 1-20.
2000 “A Building Type of the Burdur Region from the Neolithic Period” Belleten LXI, 683-706.
2005 “Budur-Antalya Bölgesi’nde Neolitik Çağ Mimarlık Gelenekleri” Colloquium Anatolicum IV, 1-15.
ÜNLÜSOY, S.
2002 “Neolithische und chalcolithische Steinarmringe: Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Verbreitung im Nahenosten und in der Ägäis” in R. Aslan et. al (Eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für M. Korfmann, Remshalden-Grunbach, Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 541-566.
WAGNER, G.A.
1998 Age Determination of Young Rocks and Artifacts. Heidelberg/Berlin, Springer Verlag.
WAGNER, G.A., E. PERNICKA and H.-P. UERPMANN (Eds.)
2003 Troia and the Troad, scientific approaches, Heidelberg/Berlin, Springer Verlag.
WASHBURN, D.K.
1984 “A Study of the Red on Cream and Cream on Red Designs on Early Neolithic Ceramics from Nea Nikomedeia” American Journal of Archaeology 88(3), 305-324.
WATKINS, T.
1996 “Excavations at Pınarbaşı: the early stages” in Hodder (Ed.), 47-58.
WENINGER, B., E. ALRAM-STERN, E. BAUER, L. CLARE, U. DANZEGLOCKE, P. JÖRIS, C. KUBATZKİ, G. ROLLEFSON and H. TODOROVA
2005 “Die Neolithisierung von Südosteuropa als Folge des abrupten Klimawandels um 8200 calBP” in D. Gronenborn (Ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas 6700-22 v.Chr., RGZM-Tagungen Band 1, 75-117.
533
WESTLEY, B.
1970 “The Mammalian Fauna” in J. Mellaart, Excavation at Hacılar, Edinburgh, 245-247.
WIJNEN, M.H.
1982 The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo: An Early Farming Community in Thessaly, Greece, Leiden, Universitaire Pers Leiden.
1993 “Early Ceramics: local manufacture versus widespread distribution” Anatolica XIX, 319-331.
WILLIS, K.J. and K.D. BENNETT
1994 “The Neolithic transition- fact or fiction? Paleoecological evidence from the Balkans” The Holocene 4(3), 326-330.
WINN, S. and D. SHIMABUKU
1989a “Architecture and Sequence of Building Remains” in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 32-68.
1989b “Pottery” in M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (Eds.), Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC, Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta Archaeologica 14, Los Angeles, 75-164.
WOLDRING, H.
2002 “Climatic change and the onset of sedentism in Cappadocia” in F. Gerard and L. Thissen (Eds.), 59-66.
VERHOEVEN, M. and P. KRANENDONK
1996 “The Excavations: Stratigraphy and Architecture” in P.M.M.G. Akkermans (Ed.), Tell Sabi Abyad The Late Neolithic Settlement, İstanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 25-118.
VERMOERE, M., P. DEGRYSE, L. VANHECKE, Ph. MUCHEZ, E. PAULISSEND, E. SMETS and M. WAELKENS
1999 “Pollen analysis of two travertine sections in Basköy (southwestern Turkey): implications for environmental conditions during the early Holocene” Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 105, 93-110.
VITELLI, K.D.
1989 “Were pots first made for foods? Doubts from Franchthi” World Archaeology 21/1: 17-29.
534
1993 “Power to the potters: comment on Perlès’ ‘Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece’ (JMA 5: 115-164)” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6.2, 247-257.
VOIGTLÄNDER, W.
1983 “Frühe Funde vom Kiliktepe bei Milet” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 33, 5-39.
YALÇINKAYA, I., H. TAŞKIRAN, M. KARTAL, K. ÖZÇELİK, M.B. KÖSEM and G. KARTAL
2008 “2006 Yılı Karain Mağarası Kazıları” XXIX. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 467-482.
YALMAN, N.
2006 “Pottery” in Çatalhöyük 2006 Archive Report, 181-225. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/archive_rep06.
YALMAN, N. and S. ÖZDÖL
2003 “Pottery Report” in Çatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report, 87-93. http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/archive_rep03.
YAYLALI, S.
2006 “Muğla Prehistoryası: Paleolitik dönemden Erken Tunç Çağı sonuna kadar” in T. Takaoğlu (Ed.), Anadolu Arkeolojisine Katkılar, 65. Yaşında Abdullah Yaylalı’ya Sunulan Yazılar, İstanbul, Hitit Color, 1-19.
YIOUNI, P.
1996a “The Early Neolithic Pottery: Technology” in K.A. Wardle (Ed.), Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964, Supplemantary Volume No 25, London, British School at Athens, 55-78.
1996b “The Early Neolithic Pottery: Typology” in K.A. Wardle (Ed.), Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964, Supplemantary Volume No 25, London, British School at Athens, 81-104.
van ZEIST, W. and W. WATERBOLK-van ROOYEN
1995 “Floral Remains from Late Neolithic Ilıpınar” in J. Roodenberg (Ed.), The Ilıpınar Excavations I: Five Seasons of Fieldwork in Northwestern Anatolia, 1987-91, İstanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 159-166.
ZOHARY D. and M. HOPF
1994 Domestication of Plants in the Old World, Oxford Science Publications.
535
ZVELEBIL, M.
2001 “The agricultural transition and the origins of Neolithic society in Europe” Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII, 1-26.
ZVELEBIL, M. and M. LILLIE
2000 “Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe” in T.D. Price (Ed.), Europe’s First Farmers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 57-92.
536
RADIOCARBON DATES FROM ULUCAK
Lab No.
Conventional Radiocarbon
Age (BP)
1 sigma cal.
range
2 sigma cal. Range Material Grid Context Elevation Phase
Beta-178748 6900±70 5880-5860 5900-5660 charcoal O11d Bld 8, in front of
the painted wall 219.00-218.82 IVb
Beta-178747 6980±60 5980-5790 5990-5730 charcoal O11d Bld 8, in front of
the painted wall 219.00-218.82 IVb
Beta-188371 7110±40 6030-5920 6030-5895 charred
fruit N11a South part of the grid (Quercus sp.) 216.74 IVi
Beta- 188370 7120±50 6050-5920 6055-5885 charcoal L13d Southern part of
bld 22 215.55 Va
Beta- 188372 7300±40 6220-6100 6230-6055 charcoal L13c
Bld 23, inside the silo on NE corner
215.43 Va
Beta- 212085 7390±60 6370-6210 6400-6090 charcoal L13b north of collapsed
mud 215.50 Vb
Beta-212086 7380±60 6370-6120 6390-6080 charcoal L13b Bld 33 215.01 Vb
Beta-212087 7520±40 -- 6080-5960 Shell L13d Brown soft
deposit 215.36 Vb
Beta- 223540 7540±110 6480-6250 6590-6210 charcoal L13a Bld 30, floor 215.07 Vb
KN-5782 7340±40 6250-6090 6270-6070 Charred
seed L13d Bld 33, from inside the silo 215.11 Vb
KN-5781 7280±35 6220-6080 6230-6060 Charred
seed L13d Bld 33, from inside the silo 215.11 Vb
KN-5783 7315±35 6230-6100 6240-6070 Charcoal L13b Bld 33 215.01 Vb
Beta- 223541 7270±40 6210-6070 6220-6030 Charcoal L13d NE of grid 214.79 Vc
Beta- 223543 7490±40 6430-6260 6430-6240 charcoal L13d SE of grid 214.42 Vc
Beta- 223542 7240±40 6210-6050 6210-6010 charcoal L13d SW of grid 214.40 Vd
Beta- 223544 7400±40 6360-6220 6380-6210 charcoal L13d
in front of the southern section
wall 214.28 Vd
Beta-236889 7580±50 6470-6400 6490-6380 charcoal L13c East of grid 214.50 Vd
Beta-236890 7270±50 6220-6070 6230-6030 charcoal L13c Central part of
grid 214.46 Vd
Beta-236891 7450±50 6390-6250 6430-6230 charcoal L13b west of the stone
foundations 214.47 Vd
Beta- 223545 7760±40 6650-6520 6660-6480 charcoal L13d West of grid 214.23 Ve
Beta-250261 7510±50 6440-6260 6450-6250 charcoal L13a Bld 40, posthole 4 214.05 Vf
Beta-250262 7570±50 6465-6395 6480-6380 charcoal L13a Bld 40, posthole 5 214.06 Vf
Beta-250263 7400±50 6370-6220 6400-6210 charcoal L13a Bld 40 214.09 Vf
Beta-250264 7440±50 6380-6250 6420-6220 charcoal L13a Bld 40, posthole 6 214.04 Vf
Beta-250265 7910±50 7000-6650 7040-6640 charcoal L13a
Clayey red painted lime floor
deposit 213.87 VIa
Beta-250266 7770±50 6650-6510 6680-6480 charcoal L13d
dark brown fill, associated with
stone circles 213.74 VIa
537